Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Training Initiatives

Mr. Martin: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to introduce further training initiatives in Scotland in respect of people who have been unemployed for more than two years.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allen Stewart): The Government have just received from the Manpower Services Commission proposals on the training and retraining needs of adults, both in employment and unemployed, following the publication in April of the commission's discussion paper "Towards an Adult Training Strategy". The commission's proposals, which will apply to Scotland as much as to other parts of Great Britain, will obviously merit the most careful study.

Mr. Martin: Is the Minister aware that many employers involved in the North sea oil sector cannot find coded welders capable of working to high standards and who can undergo the Lloyd's safety test? Would not many of the unemployed welders with a reasonable amount of training be capable of reaching the required standards? Will the Minister consider introducing a scheme to help overcome the shortage of skilled workmen?

Mr. Stewart: I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree that the Government are spending a great deal on various training schemes in Scotland. However, I shall examine his proposals in detail.

Mr. Malone: Does my hon. Friend agree that some provision is being made by the private sector to meet the need referred to by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin)? Does he welcome the intitiative by Shell Expro of Aberdeen and Grampian regional council to provide 50 training places over a four-year period for technicians in the North sea sector?

Mr. Stewart: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. He is right to emphasise that training must be a partnership between the public and private sectors.

Mr. James Hamilton: Is the Minister aware that the industrial training education centre at Bellshill industrial estate, which was opened recently with a great flourish by the Strathclyde regional council, could fall flat on its face because of a lack of funds? Will he make inquiries to determine what assistance he can give to that scheme?

Mr. Steweart: I shall inquire into the matter raised by the hon. Gentleman. I have opened one ITEC and have a great regard for what they can achieve.

Mr. Maxton: Does the Minister agree that the major problem in training is that many companies have had to cut back on their orders because of the Government's economic policies? Is the aware that those companies are no longer in a position to train new apprentices? For example, the Weir Pumps company, which has had such a splendid record in training, can now take on only four or five apprentices rather than the 400 or 500 that it used to take on a few years ago.

Mr. Stewart: We all recognise that a number of companies have had to cut back because of the recession, but I emphasise that the Government are putting immense resources into training. For example, the modular approach in the action plan for 16 to 18-year-olds will demonstrate how training can be made relevant to the changing needs of the Scottish industrial scene.

Radioactive Waste

Mr. Foulkes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received regarding dangers from radioactivity arising from discharges in Scottish coastal waters.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Younger): Over the last year I have received five representations concerning radioactivity arising from discharges to Scottish coastal waters and from the discharges at Sellafield.

Mr. Foulkes: Does the Secretary of State accept that there is genuine anxiety among many people on the west coast of Scotland about the possible link between the increased level of radioactivity in the coastal waters off the west coast of Scotland and the apparent increase in the level of leukaemia among young people? That anxiety has been exacerbated today by the finding of seaweed off the coast of Scotland that is one thousand times more radioactive than the normal level. Therefore, why have the right hon. Gentleman and the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland who is responsible for health and social security questions turned down my reasonable request that there should be a systematic investigation by the Scottish Office into this matter?

Mr. Younger: I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman says about the concern, but we should all be careful that we do not say anything to increase peoples' concern needlessly. As the hon. Gentleman will know, we have a principal medical officer from my Department attending all the meetings of Sir Douglas Black's committee who can and will be able to monitor this work carefully. We carefully monitor all the time what evidence there is of radioactivity off the coast of Scotland, and the evidence is that the maximum amounts are small and well within international safety standards.

Sir Hector Monro: Will my right hon. Friend accept that his answer to my question yesterday has been warmly welcomed and has allayed any fears about radioactivity in the Solway firth and other waters? Will he advise the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) to stop making exaggerated statements that cause alarm in Scotland and ask him to await the results of Sir Douglas Black's inquiry, which will give the answers?

Mr. Younger: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question, and particularly for what he said about being careful not to raise unnecessary alarm about the matter. I can add to what he said by saying that the total amounts of artificial radiation that have so far been found in the careful monitoring off the coast of Scotland do not amount to more than 3 per cent. of the radiation from natural sources that we experience anyway. Therefore, there is no cause for immediate concern, but the matter is being watched carefully.

Mr. Donald Stewart: The right hon. Gentleman's attitude is far too complacent, and that is proved in the letter that I received on the subject from his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. There is a good deal of alarm, as the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) has shown, and, for that reason, the people on the west coast of Scotland have a right to be assured that these levels are not dangerous. The Secretary of State has said that the levels are minimal, but they are now 30 per cent. higher than they were three years ago. Where will this end, as ingestion over a period is just as serious as having radiation all in one go?

Mr. Younger: I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's point, and a line has to be drawn between, on the one hand, being over-alarmist and alarming people unnecessarily, and, on the other, being, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested, complacent. I have assured him and the House that we take these matters seriously and are watching the position all the time. However, it does no service to anyone to suggest that there are dangers, as that may cause needless alarm, when all the facts are to the contrary.

Mr. Ewing: Is the Secretary of State aware that he is not in the best position to lecture anyone about spreading fear and alarm, after his conduct at the time of the proposed boring in the Mullwharcher hills, when he led public demonstrations throughout Ayrshire and frightened half the people in Ayrshire to death?

Mr. Younger: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has come round to my point of view at last, as he will be aware that it was this Government who decided not to proceed with that foolish proposal.

Mr. Craigen: We should welcome an independent investigation into and report on this issue, but may we have an assurance from the Secretary of State that the findings by his principal medical officer will be made public, and how soon does he expect to have that information available?

Mr. Younger: I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman says, but we have a high-powered inquiry looking into the major source of these discharges in the Sellafield area, and a Scottish principal medical officer involved in those discussions. That is a good safeguard for the Scottish position, and if there were to be any major findings or findings of importance from the inquiry we would know all about them and be able to take action quickly.

Mr. Maclennan: Does the Secretary of State realise that his answer to the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) will be widely interpreted as giving substance to the view that there was some danger in the events that led to the demonstrations in which he participated? As a matter of history, will he set the record straight?

Mr. Younger: I am not certain of the point being made by the hon. Gentleman. The point that I was making at the time has been met by the change of policy by this Government.

Rural Development

Mr. Wallace: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he will be taking to promote rural development in Scotland.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Ancram): We shall continue to direct Government assistance in appropriate ways towards rural communities in respect of agriculture, economic development and the provision of social services.

Mr. Wallace: I thank the Minister for his reply, but he did not mention the Highlands and Islands Development Board and the role that it can play in rural development in Scotland. Is he aware that the chairman of the board recently said that, because of the increase in applications, new applications might have to be delayed and financial aid to others might well fall short of normal levels? Is the Scottish Office prepared to back success? If so, what immediate plans does it have to mitigate the consequences of the severe pressure placed on the board's financial resources?

Mr. Ancram: Had the hon. Gentleman been in his present position a little longer he would have realised that the Government put a high value on the work done by the board. It has been well treated by the Government in the past, and I remind the hon. Gentleman that funds granted by the Government have risen each year, from £12·7 million in 1978–79, to £29·8 million in 1983–84. I hope he will welcome the fact that the activity generated by the board has caused the circumstances that he described.

Mr. Wallace: What are the hon. Gentleman's plans?

Mr. Henderson: Is my hon. Friend aware that in rural areas one of the great concerns is over public transport? Will he initiate further studies into what can be done to help with this problem and the possibility of making a distinction in rate support grant treatment between concessionary fares, which are often extremely beneficial to many people, and free fares, which use a lot of ratepayers' money to benefit those who have public transport, but not those who have none?

Mr. Ancram: I shall consider carefully what my hon. Friend has said. As he may know, I met COSLA recently to discuss these matters, and in coming to a decision I shall take into account what my hon. Friend and COSLA have said.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Will the Minister address himself to the question of the Highland and Islands Development Board? Is he aware that although his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said clearly in the House that if there are viable projects money will not be denied to them, that is what is happening now with the board?

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman must accept that the level of support will have to be considered in the light of public expenditure constraints. The provision for 1984–95 will include the final £4·5 million of the £10 million committed to special measures in the Invergordon area following the closure of the aluminium smelter.

Mr. McQuarrie: Does my hon. Friend accept that the HIDB has poured millions of pounds of public money into projects that have gone bankrupt, and has then given additional money to similar firms that have become bankrupt for the second time? Now that the Government have decided to give aid to the north east coast of Scotland, through the services of the Scottish Development Agency, will this not be welcome, and is it not time that these areas were given assistance, rather than wasting millions on the Highlands and Islands?

Mr. Ancram: I have noted what my hon. Friend said.

Mr. Kennedy: Surely the Minister should condemn the sentiment expressed by his hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie). Will he take the opportunity to do so, and, further, given his previous reply, take the opportunity to explain how it is that a constituent of mine, who wrote to me this week with an interesting proposal to set up the only double glazing producing factory of its type in Inverness, has been rejected by the board because the money is not available? Is that the Conservative initiative in economics?

Mr. Ancram: Having given the hon. Gentleman the figures of what the Government have provided, I am surprised that he is not prepared to welcome the assistance that the Government have been giving to the Highlands. I repeat that the level of uptake from HIDP resources is a sign of the activity going on in that area.

Mr. Forsyth: Are there not plenty of sources for funding venture capital in rural areas, and is it not the case that what is needed are fewer taxes and rates, which are the biggest disincentive to growth? In his discussions on rural transport, will my hon. Friend take the opportunity to consider reducing the restrictions and regulations which prevent private individuals from running minibus services, which could provide much-needed services in those rural areas?

Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I note his comments.

Mr. O'Neill: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's belated conversion to supporting the Highlands and Islands Development Board. Will he assure us that he will not completely neglect that board, bearing in mind the fact that it has refused to support the EC's agricultural development plans for its area, as there is a feeling abroad that the Government have turned their back on the region?

Mr. Ancram: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should say that we have belatedly recognised the needs of the Highlands. I have already given details of the increasing sums of money that are being made available. The Opposition should hang their heads in shame when they consider their record in government. I suspect the hon. Gentleman was referring to Highland farmers. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was pleased to announce on 17 October an enhancement of the rates of the hill livestock compensatory allowance on hill cows and sheep in the Highlands and Islands Development Board area, which will be introduced in parallel with additional assistance for marginal farming areas. The new rates will be warmly welcomed by the farmers concerned as tangible recognition of the disadvantages of farming in the Highlands and Islands.

Trial Costs (Accused Persons)

Dame Judith Hart: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now permit payment by the Crown of expenses to accused persons in cases where the verdict is "not guilty" or where there is a formal verdict that there is no case to answer.

Mr. Younger: No. This matter was considered by the Thomson committee on "Criminal Procedure in Scotland", Cmnd. 6218, which concluded that the award of expenses to persons acquitted in criminal proceedings was neither necessary nor desirable. The committee had in mind the existence in Scotland of an independent prosecution service, the wide availability of non-contributory legal aid, and the assistance often provided by motoring, trade union and other organisations. I remain persuaded by its assessment of the matter.

Dame Judith Hart: I am fully aware of all that the Thomson committee said 10 years ago. Will the Secretary of State take into account the fact that, according to his own information, last year there were almost 9,000 cases of crimes and offences—about half of each—in which the suspect was found not guilty, or the charge was withdrawn or it was found that there was no case to answer? Is he aware that there was great hardship in many of those cases?
Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that Thomson's conclusion that most people involved would receive financial support from an organisation or would qualify for legal aid is not true? There is great hardship. Ten years later, will the Secretary of State re-examine the matter?

Mr. Younger: I appreciate the right hon. Lady's point. However, I must observe that any cases of genuine hardship are covered by legal aid. For people who are otherwise affected, there are other sources of aid. The Thomson committee went into the issue extremely carefully and I do not believe that it would be worth while trying to second guess by having a full review of the matter.

Home Improvement Grants

Mr. Strang: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will meet the Edinburgh district council to discuss the effect in Edinburgh of the cut in home improvement grants; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Ancram: I met an all-party delegation from Edinburgh district council on 21 November to discuss capital allocations for the next financial year. I shall take account of their representations in considering the council's allocation for 1984–85.

Mr. Strang: Is the Minister aware that plans to improve tenements in Edinburgh are being abandoned and that many of the people who live in them, some of whom are elderly and have modest means, have been encouraged to spend money on the assumption that they will receive a 90 per cent. grant? Is he further aware that they are now confronted with bills for surveyors' and architects' fees and that no improvement will be carried out? Is he also aware that cutting the grant from April next year will force local authorities to renege on their undertakings? Is that not utterly unacceptable?

Mr. Ancram: I must explain yet again what the Government have done. We announced that the end date for the enhancement of the rates of some types of grant would, as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, then the Chancellor of the Exchequer, said in his Budget statement last year, be 31 March 1984. We confirmed that the open-ended commitment which allowed councils to go beyond their allocations for such grants this year would not be in practice next year. Neither of those announcements was new. Indeed, they were merely confirmation of old ones. I appreciate that some people are disappointed. That is inevitable when a temporary scheme comes to an end. As to fees, there is always a risk of incurring such bills when making an application, because there is no guarantee that such an application will be approved.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: Is the Minister aware of the great and growing despair in the cities of Scotland about the cuts in improvement grant? What future can he now offer housing association? Is their funding to be maintained? If not, much of the improvement that has been made in the past few years will be nullified, as such tenements will be adjacent to other blocks of tenements which are falling down. What possible economic justification can the Secretary of State have for his policy, in view of his complacent statement about the Scottish economy?

Mr. Ancram: I am not sure how that matter arises on a question about discussions with Edinburgh district council. The right hon. Gentleman is fully aware that announcements about the resources that are to be made available to the Housing Corporation will be made soon. It would not be proper for me to say now what those resources are likely to be.

Mr. Ron Brown: Is the Minister aware that the home improvement grant system has been abused in Edinburgh, as the greatest benefits have been reaped by speculators, who are the best financiers and supporters of the Tory party?

Mr. Ancram: I suspect that that is the nearest that we shall get to Opposition Members admitting how successful the scheme has been. One has only to look round Edinburgh and Glasgow to notice the work that has been done as a result of it. I hope that Opposition Members will welcome that improvement.

Mr. Craigen: As this issue has considerable implications for the rest of Scotland, may we have an assurance that, because so much repair work that is in the pipeline is affected by the moratorium, the Government will ensure that funds will be made available next year to continue the repairs programme?

Mr. Ancram: I have already made it clear in the House that all expenditure legally incurred before 20 October this year will be covered by the allocations that are made. We are committed to that. Opposition Members might say that that is not the question, but it affects work that is in the pipeline.

St. Andrew's Day

Mr. Canavan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will declare St. Andrew's day a public holiday in Scotland.

Mr. Younger: I have no authority in this matter as public holidays in Scotland are fixed locally by district councils.

Mr. Canavan: Why is today a public holiday in Barbados, the Philippines, Benin, Vanuatu, Upper Volta, Yugoslavia and the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen, while it is not in the Thatcher undemocratic satellite of Scotland? Is it significant that the Prime Minister's governor-general of Scotland has the same name as the patron saint of England, especially when, according to some historians, St. George was a purely mythical figure who did not even exist?

Mr. Younger: I imagine that there are public holidays in the countries to which the hon. Gentleman referred because the district councils in those areas fixed them.
As to the hon. Gentleman's other suggestion, I should much prefer to have a public holiday on 9 October, which happens to be St. Denis's day, from whom I imagine the hon. Gentleman is directly descended, and who is, of course, the patron saint of the French royal family.

Mr. Canavan: The French revolution.

Mr. Hirst: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the suggestion for additional and expensive public holidays in Scotland will be greeted with dismay by Scottish industry as it struggles to become competitive so that jobs can be protected and created?

Mr. Younger: No doubt my hon. Friend is right. Most people who are engaged in Scottish business are much more interested in getting business on its feet than in having extra public holidays.

Mr. Dewar: Does the Secretary of State agree that, more important to Scotland than any public holiday, would be recognition of the Scottish dimension in the government of the United Kingdom? Is he aware that a sprig of heather and twist of tartan, no matter how bravely worn, are no substitute for an adequate devolution policy? Will he examine Lord Home of Hirsel's suggestion that to vote "No" in the referendum was to allow an improved Conservative model to be introduced? Will he now unveil that unlikely beast?

Mr. Younger: I think it is generally agreed in Scotland that there is very little interest in the recreation of a Scottish Assembly along the lines suggested by the Labour party when it was in office. However, if the Labour party is still interested in devolution, it could take a major step by appointing the hon. Gentleman to the shadow Cabinet.

Mr. Wilson: If it is possible for Westminster abbey to fly the saltire above the looted stone of destiny, will the Minister issue an order that all public buildings in Scotland, at both national and local level, should display the St. Andrew's flag on this day of all days?

Mr. Younger: I understand that it is up to individual bodies to decide which flag to fly. The saltire is flown at the Scottish Office, New St. Andrew's house, on public occasions.

Salmon Fishing

Mr. Hugh Brown: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals are being considered regarding salmon fishing in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John MacKay): My right hon. and noble Friend is discussing a number of issues with representatives of


salmon interests, including local management structure and finance, conservation and exploitation of the stocks and sales control.

Mr. Brown: Does the Minister, as he is a bit of a fisherman himself, welcome the return of salmon to the Clyde? Will he urge his hon. and noble Friend to recognise that there is an urgent need for consultations with all the interested parties concerned with the Clyde, including the United Clyde Angling Protective Association, which is a responsible and well-regarded body?

Mr. MacKay: I add my welcome to the return of salmon to the Clyde, and I look forward to casting a fly in that river one day and, perhaps, even catching a salmon.
The Clyde river purification board is calling a meeting early next month to discuss the problem with various parties including, I believe, the association. My right hon. and noble Friend has asked the Crown Estates Commissioners, who have a role in this matter, for a report on salmon fishing rights in the Clyde as a matter of urgency.

Mr. Onslow: As a salmon fisherman, albeit an English one, may I put it to the Minister that if effective action is to be taken to save our national salmon stocks before it is too late we need close and urgent co-ordination between his Department and those who are responsible in England, Wales and Northern Ireland? Can my hon. Friend assure us that we can expect comprehensive Government legislation before it is too late?

Mr. MacKay: I assure my hon. Friend that we are in close contact with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in the south about this issue. Unfortunately, there are many differences between the various bodies interested in salmon protection and conservation. That has made it difficult for us to proceed and devise a legislative structure to preserve the salmon.

Mr. Mason: Has the Scottish Office been consulted during the lengthy review by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on inland waters and coastal estuaries? In view of the fact that this review established a salmon sales group and recommended a salmon tagging system to curb salmon poaching, what are the reactions of the Scottish Office to that recommendation? If that recommendation is adopted in England and Wales, will Scotland follow suit?

Mr. MacKay: As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow), we are in close contact with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food about the situation in England. We are considering with interest the salmon tagging proposal. One of the main differences between Scotland and England that would make it difficult for us to undertake salmon tagging in the way that is suggested for England is that we do not require salmon anglers to have rod licences. In Scotland it is necessary to look more deeply into the problem than in England to find a way round the omission of rod licences for salmon fishermen.

Mr. George Robertson: Is the Minister aware that it was in my constituency, at Blantyre weir, that the historic return of the salmon to the Clyde was first noticed? [Interruption] I am encouraged by hon. Members who cry that that is a good line. Is the Minister aware that there is genuine concern throughout the Clyde valley that the return of the salmon may affect the character of the Clyde

and that what is now a recreation area for thousands of anglers might come to be regarded as a privileged place for the few who can afford to fish for salmon?

Mr. MacKay: I look forward on my fishing trip to the Clyde to being accompanied by the hon. Gentleman, whose background in my constituency means that he should be quite a good fisherman. He has made a valid point. The trout fishing in the upper Clyde is one of a number of points that must be considered at the meeting and included in the report that the Crown Estates Commissioners will be preparing for my right hon. and noble Friend.

Sir Hector Monro: Does my hon. Friend accept that we are unlikely to see an improvement in the spring and summer salmon runs unless we tackle the issue of drift netting off the English and Irish coasts? Will my hon. Friend hold discussions on this issue with his hon. and noble Friend and the Dublin Government?

Mr. MacKay: There is great anxiety about drift netting off the coasts of England and Ireland and the illegal drift netting off the coast of Scotland. There are many who feel that the salmon stocks have moved towards an autumn run and away from a spring and a summer run because of drift netting, but other factors may be involved. We are in contact with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food about nylon monofilament drift netting, and we shall maintain those contacts.

Mr. Johnston: Is it not a matter of equal importance that heavy fishing by the Danes and the Germans off Greenland has cut off the salmon from their source? What contact has the Scottish Office had with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food about that?

Mr. MacKay: The hon. Gentleman is correct. There is a problem with the interception of salmon at sea. My Department has had contact with the Ministry and with Greenland. We have an agreement with the Faroese to reduce their take of the north Atlantic salmon passing through their waters. We can proceed only by agreement. If the Faroese take some proportion of the salmon stock that feed off their coast, they must be reasonable or they will kill the goose that lays the golden egg.

Mr. O'Neill: Does the Minister agree that the Crown Estates Commissioners have been somewhat dilatory in this instance? The Minister must push hard if there is to be an urgent inquiry, because the record leaves a great deal to be desired. We want a regime that will afford maximum access consistent with the conservation of stocks, and this should be achieved a great deal more quickly than the Crown Estates Commissioners have acted in the past.

Mr. MacKay: This is an extraordinarily complex matter, affecting heritable rights that have been exercised for more than a century. I assure the hon. Gentleman that my hon. and noble Friend is interested in developments and that he will urge the Crown Estates Commissioners to present him with a full report as soon as possible.

Railways

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer, Official Report, c. 86.5, to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) what consideration he has now given to the problem of section 20 payments and the rate support grant settlement in relation to the railways in Scotland.

Mr. Ancram: The issue for local authorities which support railway services is essentially the same as for the Government: one of making the most of available resources. The local authorities which pay section 20 grant—in Scotland, that is only the Strathclyde region—should benefit from the general improvements in efficiency that British Rail has been asked to achieve. The cost allocation procedures are now under discussion between British Rail and the passenger transport executives.

Mr. Dalyell: Ministers undertook to do something. What have they actually done since the last Scottish Question Time?

Mr. Ancram: During the previous Scottish Question Time my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that he was considering the matter. That was only about four weeks ago. If there is any particular aspect about which the hon. Gentleman would like to know more he should write to me and I shall give him an answer.

Mr. Allen Adams: Yesterday I raised the subject of the rate support grant. Will the Minister give the House an assurance that the rate support grant for the passenger transport authorities will not be allowed to fall to a level at which redundancies will occur in the Glasgow and western Scotland areas? Will he further give an assurance that there will be no reduction in staff at Gourock, Ayr, Wemyss bay, Fairlie and Saltcoats and that Ardrosson beach station will not close? Will he also give attention to the future of Ardrosson harbour, which I understand from the National Union of Railwaymen is also threatened?

Mr. Ancram: I understand that the latter part of the question was answered last night by the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), who has responsibility for trade and industry matters. Relevant expenditure to 1984–85 includes about £32 million for section 20 payments, and this is broadly in line with expected demands. This figure is reflected in the overall expenditure guidelines of the Strathclyde regional council, issued on 18 November. Rate support grant is paid in aid of local revenues and is not earmarked for specific purposes. The total rate support grant for 1984–85 and its distribution among authorities are matters that have yet to be settled.

Mr. Dewar: Will the Minister please give much more urgent attention to the real crisis facing the financing of railway services in Strathclyde? Apart from the cost allocation talks, which we welcome, there is a problem for a hard-pressed region that will have to find over £30 million in the coming financial year for section 20 payments. Will the Government do something to help preserve the line for the general travelling public, who deserve a decent and adequate service? I am not asking for Government intervention for particular interest groups. The Minister should not try to wash his hands of the matter and duck out of his responsibilities. Will he give an undertaking that he will take action?

Mr. Ancram: This is a matter for the Strathclyde passenger transport executive and the Strathclyde regional council, which have the statutory power and responsibility to co-ordinate public transport in the area.

Nurses (Discipline)

Mr. Ewing: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will review the procedures for dealing wth breaches of discipline by nurses in the National Health Service in Scotland.

Mr. John MacKay: No, Sir. Responsibility for conducting disciplinary procedures rests with employing authorities, operating within the relevant NHS General Whitley council agreement.

Mr. Ewing: Is the Minister aware of the blatant victimisation by the Forth valley health board in general, and particularly by senior nursing management at the Falkirk royal infirmary? One of my constituents was reported for allegedly taking drugs and was subsequently prosecuted at the Falkirk sheriff court. My constituent was given an absolute discharge by that court but was subsequently called to attend a disciplinary hearing arranged by the health board and was dismissed. On what basis can the Minister defend that form of double jeopardy upon any member of nursing staff throughout Scotland, and particularly on my constituent at the Falkirk royal infirmary?

Mr. MacKay: The hon. Gentleman will know, from the time when he had ministerial responsibilities for health in the Scottish Office, that dismissals of the sort to which he referred can be the subject of appeal to my right hon. Friend. As the time for that appeal has not elapsed, I cannot comment further on the issue.

Mr. Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, I give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

South of Scotland Electricity Board

Mr. Eadie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has as to the likely effects on employment as a consequence of reduced coal burn by the South of Scotland Electricity Board in 1984.

Mr. Allan Stewart: In the year from 1 November 1983 the South of Scotland Electricity Board expects total coal burn, including slurry for Scottish requirements, to rise to about 4·5 million tonnes, compared with 4·25 million tonnes in 1982–83. This excludes the effect of any net exchange of power with England and Wales, which amounted to an extra 850,000 tonnes in 1982–83. Any employment implications for the National Coal Board and the South of Scotland Electricity Boards are a matter for the respective boards to consider.

Mr. Eadie: The Minister must be aware that during yesterday's debate I presented a scenario which could mean either five pits or 4,800 jobs being at stake, or 3,000 jobs if coal burn is reduced by 1·7 million tonnes. I referred to the serious implications for the coal industry in Scotland and the Scottish economy generally and asked whether the Secretary of State would consider meeting area officials of the National Union of Mineworkers in Scotland and some hon. Members who have constituency mining interests. As the Under-Secretary of State did not respond to my intervention in the debate am Ito take it that he is not prepared to discuss the serious implications facing the industry and the economy? Is there a "No Entry" sign in front of the Secretary of State's office at St. Andrew's house?

Mr. Stewart: The Government's concern is to have a viable mining industry that can produce coal at prices that will enable it to win markets. The Government have supported the coal industry to the extent of over £3,500 million in capital investment and £1,599 million in grants since 1979. Electricity consumers should not be asked to subsidise the mining industry. I think the hon. Gentleman will recognise that I referred to his speech last night. The coal industry is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy. However, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is always prepared to meet hon. Members who represent Scottish constituencies on matters of concern to them.

Mr. Henderson: While I recognise the value of Scottish coal to the economy, may I ask my hon. Friend to ask the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) to explain why he is asking hon. Members with constituents who are anxious about the cost of fuel to increase the price of electricity to help miners who will not help themselves, and at a time when the Government are providing £10 million a week to support the National Coal Board?

Mr. Eadie: I should be very pleased to answer that supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) may answer my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Henderson) outside the Chamber. I emphasise the point that my hon. Friend is making, which is that electricity consumers should not be asked to subsidise the mining industry.

Mr. Foulkes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Henderson)——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall take points of order after Question Time.

Mr. Home Robertson: The hon. Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Henderson) will get his answer if he chooses to meet some of the miners in my constituency. Surely the Minister cannot shrug off the implications of the wild fluctuations in coal burn in Scotland for employment in areas such as East Lothian, which is my constituency. Will he, just for once, make a clear and simple statement of commitment to the future of the coal industry, the electricity industry and the prospects of introducing combined heat and power in the Lothian region?

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Energy took up the issue of combined heat and power on Monday. I repeat that since 1979 the Government have provided the coal industry with over £3,500 million of capital investment and grants amounting to £1,599 million. Surely that is ample evidence of commitment.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the consequences of reduced coal burn will be a reduction in the amount of acid rain? As the substantial overcapacity of electricity generation in Scotland has been confirmed in a written answer to me, is it not absurd that we should be embarking on a new hydro-electric scheme in the north-west at Loch Maree, for example, and other commitments involving vast capital expenditure?

Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend will be aware that the elements of cost and price are crucial for the future of an efficient electricity industry.

Mr. O'Neill: Will the Minister recognise that responsibility for the funding of the SSEB rests with his right hon. Friend? As the National Coal Board is the major supplier of the SSEB, it is essential that the future of the industry is made clear to all concerned. Will he therefore allow my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) and other colleagues to meet his right hon. Friend to discuss this matter of vital interest and importance to the Scottish economy?

Mr. Stewart: I have emphasised to the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie), and I do so again for the benefit of the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill), that my right hon. Friend is always willing to see Scottish Members of Parliament on matters that are of concern to them. I do not think that I can make that very much clearer.

Shipbuilding Industry

Mr. Ron Brown: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has received regarding the shipbuilding industry in Scotland.

Mr. Allan Stewart: My right hon. Friend met a delegation of Scottish Church leaders on 14 November and I had meetings in September with representatives of local interests about shipyards on lower Clyde, Govan Shipbuilders and Henry Robb, Leith.

Mr. Brown: Bearing in mind that Robb's of Leith has now completed the last vessel on its order book, will the Minister use all his influence to bring forward Ministry of Defence orders to help the shipbuilding industry in general and Robbs in particular?

Mr. Stewart: The Ministry of Defence recognises the present difficulties facing the yard and the industry generally. Henry Robb has been given an opportunity to tender for a number of Ministry of Defence orders, along with other small United Kingdom yards, including Hall Russell. The tenders are currently being assessed. The Ministry hopes to place some orders before the end of the year.

Electricity Generation

Mr. Douglas: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate the percentage of electricity to be generated from coal in the next five years by power stations in Scotland.

Mr. Allan Stewart: In 1982–83, 38 per cent. of electricity generated in Scotland came from coal and slurry-fired stations. Within the limits of the uncertainties of forecasting, the South of Scotland Electricity Board expects this figure to rise to 43 per cent. in 1983–84 and to 56 per cent. in 1987–88.

Mr. Douglas: I accept the Minister's percentages. but is it not a fact that in absolute terms coal burn will decline? Is it not reasonable to assume that the unit costs of production of both the South of Scotland Electricity Board and the National Coal Board in Scotland will rise, to the jeopardy of industry and of miners' jobs? Will the Secretary of State not slide away from his responsibility to ensure a dynamic coal industry in Scotland because, notwithstanding our oil and gas reserves, coal is the most fruitful and secure fuel for the future?

Mr. Stewart: As I said in answer to the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie), the coal burn for next year will be higher than for this year. The hon. Gentleman made a general point about the coal industry. The figures that I gave a few minutes ago confirm the Government's concern to have a viable mining industry that can produce coal at prices that enable it to win markets.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND

Sheriff Court House (Glasgow)

Mr. McTaggart: asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland when he expects Crown Office staff to be operating in the new sheriff court house in Glasgow.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. Peter Fraser): I understand that the new sheriff court house in Glasgow is scheduled to be completed and ready for occupation by September 1986. A small number of the staff of the procurator fiscal Glasgow will be accommodated in the new sheriff court building.

Mr. McTaggart: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman satisfied that when the sheriff court building is open it will be adequate for the purposes for which it was built, given that in addition to the Crown case work with which it will have to deal it will presumably have to deal with civil case work when the new Scottish divorce laws come into operation in the not-too-distant future?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The present accommodation in Glasgow for the considerable volume of work handled is completely inadequate and it is hoped that what is now to be provided in the new sheriff court building will be adequate. The hon. Gentleman should appreciate that much of the divorce work that will be done at the new sheriff court building will not require the appearance of the witnesses or the parties in court.

Mr. Dewar: I appreciate that point and the fact that the Minister is confident that the new building will accommodate both the Crown Office staff and any new impact of divorce jurisdiction going to the sheriff court. Can he say what will be the impact on the civil side of the divorce law changes? When will there be a decision on the Scottish Law Commission report on financial settlements on divorce, as the hon. and learned Gentleman has been copiously reported in the Scottish press recently as suggesting that there will not be an early decision, although the English are already legislating on the subject?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I have sought to show that this is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. Hon. Members will appreciate that there is at present no proposal before the House to deal with this matter. There is, though, the Scottish Law Commission report and if the hon. Gentleman wishes to spend his time sensibly by reading the Conservative party manifesto, he will find reference to that matter there.

Salmon

Mr. McQuarrie: asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland if he will discuss with procurators fiscal prosecution policy in respect of offences of salmon poaching.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I have discussions with procurators fiscal from time to time about all aspects of prosecution policy. I am satisfied that procurators fiscal take proceedings against salmon poachers in appropriate cases and that, like myself, they view the level of poaching, particularly commercial poaching, with concern.

Mr. McQuarrie: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that on the north-east coast of my constituency large quantities of salmon are poached but that no prosecutions take place? One of the reasons—I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will clarify the position—is that there are no prosecutions for reset. Once the salmon is landed and is handed over to the person who is purchasing it, he cannot be prosecuted. Will my hon. and learned Friend take further steps to ensure that procurators fiscal are more diligent in their duties in prosecuting offenders?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: My hon. Friend is correct. Salmon taken illegally is not stolen and accordingly cannot thereafter be resetted. I recognise that my hon. Friend has had problems in his constituency but he will be encouraged to know that last summer the Department in Scotland which has responsibility for this matter used spotter planes and helicopters in an attempt to crack down harder on the growth in poaching, particularly poaching of a commercial character.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware of the exaggerated attention being given by the Scottish Office to this offence, especially in relation to fishery cruisers picking up nets, when foreign vessels are fishing illegally all around the British coast? What is his attitude to the rights of bailiffs in the light of a recent case in Lewis where, although a person suffered severe personal injuries, the accused was fined only £50?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: On the latter point, I think the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that it is not for me to comment on particular sentences. But I am surprised that, as an hon. Member concerned about tourism, he does not recognise that the growth of commercial poaching of salmon in Scottish rivers and offshore waters is damaging and that, if it is allowed to continue, will do nothing for the reputation either of his part of Scotland or any other part.

Mr. Soames: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the level of fines imposed on people caught salmon poaching is by and large ludicrously low? Will he take steps to consult his colleagues with a view to having the fines greatly increased?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I appreciate my hon. Friend's interest in this matter. There is concern that the level of fines is sometimes not adequate. However, if my hon. Friend were to look to the level of fines imposed for commercial poaching in Scotland he would be satisfied that, in those circumstances, substantial fines are imposed.

Mr. Canavan: Does not the return of salmon to the upper reaches of the Clyde, which has been largely due to public investment in river purification, strengthen the case for my private Member's Bill calling for the public ownership of all freshwater fishing rights in Scotland? If that were enacted the people would own all the fishing rights and would, therefore, have no need to poach.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman wishes to allow his constituents a free


rein to fish anywhere in Scotland. However, as the hon. Gentleman will know, this is properly a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Speed Checks (Hand-held Radar Devices)

Mr. Wilson: asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland what guidance he has given to procurators fiscal on the use of hand-held radar devices used in road traffic speeding cases.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: On the instructions of my noble Friend the Lord Advocate, a circular was issued on 8 May 1980 to procurators fiscal advising them of the checks police officers should carry out when operating this type of equipment. No prosecutions for speeding offences will be initiated if these checks are not satisfactorily carried out.

Mr. Wilson: Is the Solicitor-General for Scotland aware that about 20 cases of possible interference in the use of these devices have been identified by the BBC "Watchdog" programme? In those circumstances, does he not agree that the possibility of error is so great that the device should be withdrawn from use?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I am not certain about the 20 cases where there might be error but I know that, in accordance with the guidance given by my noble Friend the Lord Advocate, both before these devices are used and after there must be a check to ensure that they have been operating properly and without interference. If there has been interference prosecutions will not follow.

Cairnryan (Shipbreaking)

Mr. Foulkes: asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland what prosecutions have been completed resulting from the shipbreaking at Cairnryan.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: There have been two prosecutions under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 arising out of the shipbreaking operations at Cairnryan. In one case fines totalling £1,500 were imposed while in the second proceedings are still pending in the sheriff court at Stranraer.

Mr. Foulkes: Does not the Solicitor-General for Scotland think it disgraceful that two people have been killed in the shipbreaking of the Ark Royal? Is he aware that in 1983 two prohibition notices have been served, one report has gone to the procurator fiscal, and eight warning letters have been issued from the Health and Safety Executive? Does that not show the sorry state of private enterprise operations at Cairnryan? Is it not the case that the Health and Safety Executive does not have enough men properly to police this matter to ensure an adequate oversight of it? What responsibility will his Department take for this sorry state of affairs?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: My hon. Friend the Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Lang) in whose constituency Cairnryan is situated took this matter up with the Minister of State, Department of Employment, my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) four or five months ago. The hearing into one of the deaths to which he referred is still pending before the sheriff's court at Stranraer. For good reasons that the hon. Gentleman will understand, I can make no further comment on that. With regard to my own responsibilities in this matter, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that in every case that has been referred to the procurator fiscal by the Health and Safety Executive arising out of these shipbreaking operations there has been a prosecution.

Mr. McQuarrie: My hon. and learned Friend said that a fine of £1,560 had been imposed. It was imposed on my constituent, Mr. Miles of Northern Shipbreakers company, which was responsible for the breaking-up of the Ark Royal. Will he accept, however, that that case has not been completed? The Department of Employment is currently looking into the actions of the Health and Safety Executive officers and the restrictions on the Ark Royal prior to the breaking-up.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The operations of the Health and Safety Executive and the inquiries that my hon. Friend has made of the Department of Employment are not within my province. I am concerned only when such cases have been reported to the procurator fiscal. When those reports have been made, a prosecution has always resulted.

National Graphical Association (Dispute)

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Leon Brittan): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the picketing outside the premises of the Messenger group of newspapers in Warrington last night and in the early hours of this morning.
I understand from the chief constable of Cheshire that between 9 pm and 11 pm last night the number of pickets increased rapidly from 500 to about 4,000 people. Their purpose was clear. It was not to communicate information. It was not persuasion. It was not even demonstration. It was to prevent, by physical force and weight of numbers, newspapers from being taken out of the premises. Many of the pickets had travelled from far afield; many came prepared for, and used, violence against the police. A number were armed with offensive weapons such as iron bars.
At the height of the operation, the chief constable deployed over 1,200 men, from his own force and those of Greater Manchester, Merseyside, and Lancashire. As a result, the vehicle carrying the newspapers was able to leave the premises at the time planned at 5 o'clock this morning, and did so. The pickets began to disperse from about 6 am.
During the course of the disturbances, police officers were attacked and missiles were thrown at them. Twenty three officers were injured and three have been detained in hospital. I am glad to inform the House that at present none appears to have been seriously injured. Thirteen pickets are recorded as having been injured, one of whom remains in hospital. Again, I understand that his condition is not serious. A total of 86 people were arrested for a range of public order offences and offences of assault and obstruction.
I have conveyed to the chief constable my great appreciation of the police operation, and the way in which his officers and those of the other forces dealt with an immensely difficult situation. It is a great tribute to them that the lawful right to move the newspapers was upheld. I have asked that my concern and sympathy should be passed on to the injured officers, as I did in the case of those who incurred injuries last week.
I understand that the number of pickets has now declined to about 150, but there are threats that large numbers will try tonight to repeat the events of last night and this morning. The chief constable has the responsibility for maintaining the rule of law and devising and executing the appropriate plans for doing so. I have made it crystal clear to him that if there is any assistance he requires from me it will be readily available, and he will have my complete support for the exercise of his very considerable powers to the full extent that is required to deal with the situation.
There is and can be no excuse for violence and the attempt by intimidating weight of numbers to negate the lawful rights of other people. Irrespective of the merits of the industrial dispute, what has happened here amounts to breaches of what has always been the criminal law. The place and pretext for its breach make no difference whatsoever. Violence at the picket line is as indefensible as violence at a football match or anywhere else.
Action of the kind we saw last night cannot and will not be tolerated. I hope that the House as a whole will join me in condemning what occurred, and the mass picketing which was its cause, and giving every support to the police in preventing or dealing with a recurrence.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I want to make it absolutely plain that the Opposition categorically condemn all violence, in all circumstances, in whatever place, and for whatever purpose it is used. We endorse the view of the TUC policy and organisation committee that trade unions should be supported in carrying out their lawful functions on behalf of their members. I ask the Home Secretary, for his part, to confirm that any possible breach of the law by pickets cannot justify any counter-breach of the law by anyone else.
In view of allegations that have been made, can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say what reports he has received about the methods of policing at Warrington, particularly in relation to the communications van of the National Graphical Association which has been parked at the Warrington works for four weeks with police permission, and which the police themselves have used during that period? Are not the deplorable scenes of violence the direct outcome of the folly of the Government in dragging industrial relations into the law courts and allowing—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a serious matter. I hope that the House will listen in silence.

Mr. Kaufman: The Government are allowing any wayward employer to use the courts of law as a weapon to win a victory in an industrial dispute. Cannot the Government get it into their head that the key to improving industrial relations lies in conciliation, not confrontation?
What action will the Home Secretary now take, as a member of the Cabinet, to get the parties to this dispute round the table to sort out their differences by the time-honoured process of negotiation and conciliation? How many more lamentable episodes such as this will we have to go through before the Government learn that vital lesson?

Mr. Brittan: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's condemnation of violence. He referred to counter-breaches of the law in a rather veiled form. If he has any specific allegations to make, I should be grateful if he would do so specifically and they will be investigated in the proper way. He asked about methods of policing. I shall look into any specific allegation that he wishes to make.
The right hon. Gentleman then referred to what had been said by the TUC. I should be grateful if he and Labour Members would express their full support for what the TUC said in its guidelines in February 1979, when it stated:
It is lawful for persons acting in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute to picket at or near a workplace or any other place … provided they do no more than peacefully obtain or communicate information or peacefully persuade workers to abstain from work".
If anyone believes that 4,000 people are needed to do that, whom does he think he is kidding?

Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his forthright statement, which makes it quite clear that what is involved


at Warrington is nothing to do with the Employment Act but is to do with the breach of the liberties and rights of the subject as guaranteed by the common law. Will he invite the Leader of the Opposition to associate himself with that condemnation without the qualifications and weasel words that we have just heard from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman)?

Mr. Brittan: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. No changes in the statute law on employment have made any difference about what happened last night. Violence caused by mass picketing would have been just as unlawful before those changes as it is today. My right hon. Friend is right to refer to the importance of the force of informed opinion. We in this House have a tremendous responsibility. We do not want a repetition of those scenes, and one of the ways of ensuring that is for all of us to condemn violence.

Hon. Members: The right hon. Gentleman should answer.

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the right hon. Gentleman seeks to catch my eye, he will be able to answer at the end.

Mr. David Steel (Tweeddale, Etterick and Lauderdale): I would give way to the Leader of the Opposition if he chose to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker.
Is the Home Secretary aware of the statement at lunchtime by the national secretary of the NGA that tonight's picketing will be an even larger force? Does not that give the lie to the idea that this is some kind of spontaneous outburst? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that political parties in this House should not just repudiate violence in general terms but should specifically repudiate those who in this House give aid and comfort to it?

Mr. Brittan: I entirely endorse what the right hon. Gentleman has said. It is difficult to square any kind of alleged spontaneity with the document I have in my hand, which invites people to join the picket line in return for £25 to cover their lost time.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that, quite apart from violence or the behaviour of the pickets, the mere presence of so many of them has in the past been held to be intimidation and that in the past that view has been accepted by better leaders of the Labour party than we now have?

Mr. Brittan: The first point is most certainly so. In the case of Piddington v. Bates, exactly that proposition was upheld by the courts.

Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: As the right hon. and learned Gentleman must be fair in these matters, what evidence other than that from the chief constable of Cheshire did he receive?

Mr. Brittan: If the hon. Gentleman challenges my account of what occurred, he must have failed to read any newspapers or to watch any television.

Sir Edward Gardner: Does not my right hon. and learned Friend agree that thousands of pickets, strangers to any industrial disputes and without a word of warning or discouragement from the Leader of the Opposition, are laying siege not just to a printing plant in Warrington but to the barriers of law that are for all of us the ultimate protection against anarchy.

Mr. Brittan: I totally agree. In considering the breadth and extent of the action that has taken place, the House might like to know that on the evidence of the occupations given by some of those who have been arrested we find that some were students, a teacher and a social worker and that they come from places as far afield as London, Scotland, Birmingham, Middlesbrough, Salford and Essex. That is not a spontaneous action or action in defence of anyone's livelihood; it is organised anarchy.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: Is it not clear that mass picketing on this scale is, by its very nature, designed to intimidate rather than to persuade? Was it not clearly unlawful under the laws of the last Labour Government? If the NGA desires to avoid violence, surely it should call off a repetition of the picketing tonight and should be urged to do so by the official Opposition spokesman.

Mr. Brittan: I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. Interestingly enough, what he said is today echoed in a quotation in The Standard from one of the six people on whose behalf this whole operation is supposed to be conducted. That person is quoted as saying:
There is no way that I condone violence of any sort. We are here for our jobs, but some of these other people come just to have a punch-up with the policemen. We don't want to see that".

Mr. Fergus Montgomery: In view of the claims that the pickets are not responsible for violence, will my right hon. and learned Friend explain why so many policemen have been injured? Have they been hitting each other, or were these self-inflicted wounds? What is happening outside the printing works at Warrington is disgraceful and is a breach of the law. When the Labour party makes allegations of police brutality, should not it be reminded that if these people were not breaking the law and illegally picketing the police would not need to be present?

Mr. Martin Flannery: The hon. Gentleman said that yesterday.

Mr. Montgomery: And I say it again today.

Mr. Brittan: I share my hon. Friend's sentiments.

Mr. Ron Leighton: Might there not be a design fault in the new and controversial legislation which has produced a legal juggernaut that is now out of control? Has not it transformed a relatively trivial and obscure industrial dispute, which could be settled immediately by the reinstatement of six men, into a major confrontation that has stripped a major union of all its property and assets by a form of bureaucratic mugging? While that may be possible in a country such as Poland, here it will only sour and worsen industrial relations.

Mr. Brittan: I do not share the hon. Gentleman's view of the legislation, he will not be surprised to hear, but I share the view of the deputy leader of the Labour party, who said:
Those of us who believe the law to be wrong have to change it rather than break it.

Sir William Clark: Is it not disgraceful that when the Leader of the Opposition is encouraged by Government supporters to condemn the violence all that he does is grin broadly? Would my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is rather peculiar that Opposition Members talk about peaceful picketing when


bottles, stones and iron bars are used on the picket line? Is not this complete and utter anarchy that must be put down at once? Would he agree, further, that if there are people in the country who do not like whatever laws we have to operate under the only way to change those laws is through the ballot box?

Mr. Brittan: I agree with my hon. Friend.
On the question of the Leader of the Opposition speaking on matters of that kind, I do not take the view that all of us have to speak up on every issue and that if we do not speak up we must be construed by our silence to speak in a particular sense. But in the particular circumstances of this dispute, when the matter is not at an end and when violence is threatened, all of us have to search our consciences and ask whether we can make a contribution to preventing violence by speaking against it. That is a matter for each of us, from the top to the bottom.

Mr. J. D. Concannon: While not condoning the violence or the scenes last night, may I ask the Home Secretary whether he is aware that any decent industrial relations officer or any fair-minded manager would probably have settled this argument in an hour in an office on a Friday? Is he aware that if it were not for the Government's legislation—and they must take responsibility for this—the dispute would never have got beyond the factory line?

Mr. Brittan: I do not share that view.

Mr. George Gardiner: Despite the fact that a van containing newspapers was eventually able to leave this plant, it would seem from the reports of last night's riot that the police forces were not sufficient to control the mob assembled. Can my right hon. and learned Friend give the House a double assurance that if any further occurrences of this kind arise the police forces will be adequate to enable our citizens to go about their lawful business?

Mr. Brittan: The extent of the forces required at any given place must be a matter for the chief constable, but I can assure the House, as I have already done, that all assistance that the chief constable on the day and at the place thinks is necessary will be provided, and that, of course, includes full mutual assistance from neighbouring forces to the necessary extent.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: The Home Secretary argues that the police, out of necessity, had to charge the picket lines long before the delivery van was ready for dispatch at 5 o'clock. Can he say why they had to dismantle the radio equipment in the NGA van and manhandle the NGA officials out of the van five hours before the delivery was due to go out of the yard? Why did the baton charges take place for several hours before the dispatch of that van? Surely this was provocation. Surely the right hon. and learned Gentleman should agree that the purpose of the police activity was merely to enable the van to get out of the yard, but the police were provoking the incidents for many hours before that? The police have had an official complaint about that van with which I hope they will be able to deal.

Is not the truth of the matter that this Tory Government have set out to smash the trade union movement and that they use the Tory judges in order to cripple the trade unions' financial—[Interruption.]

The Speaker: Order. I think that is enough.

Mr. Skinner: rose——

The Speaker: Order. I order the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) to resume his seat.

Mr. Brittan: If the hon. Gentleman had heard me aright, he would know that the specific allegations against the police, if any, will be considered in the proper way.
The hon. Gentleman talks about the plans of the Government to smash the trade union movement. I have to say, although this goes beyond last night's events, that I cannot think of any better way of damaging the trade union movement than by condoning what happened last night.

Mr. Tony Favell: Is the Home Secretary able to confirm that it is within the powers of the chief constable to turn back the hordes of lawbreakers now heading for Warrington before they reach their destination?

Mr. Brittan: If he suspects that their attendance at the spot will lead to a breach of the peace, he has full powers to do so.

Mr. Martin J. O'Neill: Can the Home Secretary confirm that the reports he has received from the police have contained references to the destruction of the NGA van, or is he giving us a partial view of the situation as he has received it?

Mr. Brittan: I have given the facts to the House that seem to me to be relevant.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it has to be a cause of considerable sadness that we have a rent-a-mob of 4,000 people being carted round the country paid for by the trade unions and deliberately supported by the Opposition Front Bench? Is not the violence caused because a section of the community feel that at heart the Labour party believes in smashing laws and not supporting them?

Mr. Brittan: My hon. Friend talks of sadness, and there is, indeed, cause for sadness in yesterday's events, but there is also cause for satisfaction, and it is that the rule of law is being maintained and that the overwhelming majority of people want that to continue.

Mr. James Lamond: Since the Home Secretary has told us today that the situation is so far out of hand that he cannot control it unless he has the full support of the Opposition Front Bench—a view that seems to be strongly supported by his Back Benchers—does he realise that he will get the support of people like myself only when he applies conciliation and not confrontation to the situation?

Mr. Brittan: We can manage quite well without the hon. Gentleman. The question is the price that has to be paid. Some people think that the price the police are being asked to pay is too high and we have a responsibility to reduce it.

Mr. Alistair Burt: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the real problem in this


dispute is caused by the attitude of those who believe that they can pick and choose the laws they obey because of political reasons and that this disrespect for the rule of law is compounded by the irresponsible attitude of those Opposition Members who refuse to grasp the nettle and condemn those who defiantly break the law and picket illegally? Does he not agree, further, that this spineless and craven attitude of giving in to the bully boy and the militant throughout the Labour movement is responsible for Labour Members sitting on the Opposition Benches and not on the Government Benches?

Mr. Brittan: I take note of what my hon. Friend has said. My task is to do what I can to assist those responsible for maintaining the rule of law, and that I shall continue to do.

Mr. David Winnick: Is it not of interest that the Master of the Rolls is quoted in one newspaper as saying today that the legal system favours the employers at the expense of the unions? Leaving aside how those talks took place between the Master of the Rolls and a senior civil servant in the Department of Employment, is not that remark of great relevance?
Why does not the Cabinet learn from the experience of the Industrial Relations Act? Since that Act showed itself to be a recipe for confrontation, is it not obvious that all anti-trade union laws will lead to this kind of confrontation?

Mr. Brittan: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman for one moment. It is a complete illusion to think that the law can keep out of industrial relations or has ever done so. The only difference between the hon. Gentleman and my right hon. and hon. Friends is as to where the line should be drawn.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: Has my right hon. and learned Friend noticed that because the British public, unlike the Leader of the Opposition, totally condemn acts of thuggery on the picket line, and because they believe passionately in upholding the law, there has never been an occasion when they have so totally opposed industrial action?

Mr. Brittan: I think that that is right.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Can the Home Secretary confirm that it is the Government's duty to produce conditions conducive to public order? Will he reflect that for 16 weeks there was picketing at the dispute in Stockport perfectly peacefully until the courts were resorted to and that that is where the difficulties have come from? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give further thought to the fact that many of my constituents in Stockport do not want copies of the Messenger pushed through their front doors if they are produced in these circumstances? Will he ensure that they do not have them?

Mr. Brittan: I do not think that it is very difficult to advise those who do not want copies of the Messenger what to do with them. I do not believe that that is the central issue in this dispute. However, it is quite ridiculous to suggest that the Government are at fault because problems have arisen as a result of people deliberately flouting a court order.

Mr. James Couchman: My right hon. and learned Friend no doubt heard on "The World at One"

today the lengthy interview with Mr. Joe Wade, the general secretary of the NGA. Did my right hon. and learned Friend find his posture any more convincing than that of the Opposition Front Bench?

Mr. Brittan: My hon. Friend invites me to make a comparison which would not necessarily be helpful in the context of this dispute.

Mr. Laurie Pavitt: Like my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and the Home Secretary, I am one of the last to support or condone violence, but may I remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman that this is a re-run of what happened in my constituency at a firm called Grunwick where, unfortunately, I witnessed violence by both police and pickets? I ask the Home Secretary to recall that all these years later, when we sought to establish the rights of an individual to join or not to join a trade union, not one trade union member is permitted to work for Grunwick. This is directly contrary to the rights of people to join a union. It is a non-union company. Any employee who joins a union is sacked.

Mr. Brittan: Whether or not that is so, I will not comment. I respect the hon. Gentleman's genuine belief that violence is to be deplored. However, I ask him to agree that generalised condemnations of violence are not sufficient. We have to face the fact that if there is mass picketing on the scale that we have seen in these recent events it is almost bound to lead to violence. It is that which has to be condemned and not just violence in general terms.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Does my right hon. and learned Friend recall any other issue in this Parliament upon which the Leader of the Opposition has remained so silent?

Mr. Brittan: I follow the utterances of the right: hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) less closely than my hon. and learned Friend does.

Mr. Bob Clay: Will the Home Secretary accept that it was a quite frightening experience to witness personally, on the invitation of one's constituents who previously had been arrested, what happened last night and then to hear the braying hysteria of Government supporters? Is not it time that the Home Secretary commented specifically on the fact that the police broke into a van owned by the NGA that was legally parked and broke its radio telephone links, smashed its PA system and broke its walkie-talkie communications and that they did it before there were any disturbances? Is it not a fact that, as a result of NGA officials not being able to use that communications equipment, it was made far more difficult for them to organise the demonstration?
Whatever else, if, before there has been any disturbance or any violence, rank after rank of police with riot shields and riot helmets proceed to make baton charges on demonstrators who are simply standing there several hours before any attempt to drive the delivery van out of the works, is it not inevitable that violence follows?
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that whatever retaliatory violence occurred—violence which has been condemned by the Opposition as much as by Government supporters—it is also the case that I and other hon. Members witnessed the most appalling brutality by some members of the police force, in some cases where


it was quite unwarranted and it could be seen that the demonstrators had not provoked it in any way? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman condemn——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must ask the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members to keep their questions short.

Mr. Brittan: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to pursue complaints against the police, there is a proper avenue for doing so.
The hon. Gentleman said that it was a frightening experience to be there. I have no doubt that he is right in saying that. But what he has to bear in mind is that the purpose of lawful picketing as enunciated by the TUC itself in 1979 does not require 4,000—[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman—[Interruption]——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Home Secretary was answering a question. If we cannot have order in the House, how can we expect it anywhere else?

Mr. Brittan: If the hon. Gentleman had told me that it was the intention of the union to use that method of communication to reduce the number of pickets to the number required for genuinely lawful picketing, I should have very much more sympathy with what he says.

Mr. Neil Hamilton: Since my right hon. and learned Friend mentioned the TUC, does he agree that one of the best ways to de-fuse the present situation and end the violence will be for the TUC to stand up for the maintenance of the rule of law and to discipline the NGA? Is not the apparent lack of authority and will of the TUC in this respect deplorable?

Mr. Brittan: My hon. Friend has a valid point.

Mr. Flannery: Is not it a fact that a Tory party member, Sir John Donaldson, failed totally as chairman of the notorious Industrial Relations Court and, as a result of that failure, eventually the Conservative party admitted that that law was a bad law and should have been withdrawn? Is not the same man, now Master of the Rolls, engaged in a similar task?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Before we go too far down this path, I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not seeking to criticise the Master of the Rolls.

Mr. Flannery: My question will be brief compared with some that have been allowed.
Is it not a fact that the Home Secretary is only selectively and partially answering the questions put to him by Opposition Members, that he has only taken evidence from the chief constable of Cheshire, and that he seemed not to know about the brutal violence of the police last night? Does he expect British trade unions which are under full scale assault from the Conservative party to sit quiet while they are dismantled? Is that what the Conservative party is after? It is the Conservatives who are encouraging mass picketing more than any Opposition Member. We are all appalled at violence, and we are especially appalled at police violence. I have never been violent in my life.

Mr. Brittan: All that I am asking Opposition Members to do is not to condone breaches of what was the criminal law long before any of the legislation to which the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery)

objects came into effect. What would be helpful from as many people as possible is the simple endorsement of the TUC guidance on the conduct of picketing, which was endorsed by the last Labour Government.

Mr. Richard Alexander: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the vast majority of people listening to their radios this morning were disgusted and frightened by the noises that they heard of the activities of the pickets at Warrington? Does he accept that they will not be reassured by the noise that they have heard from Opposition Members? Will he take time today to disabuse the country of the disgraceful smears that we have heard from some Opposition Members about the conduct of the police? The police did not arrive armed with bottles, sticks and stones and, in one case, a gun.

Mr. Brittan: My hon. Friend is right. If I appear to be inhibited to any extent in commenting on the allegations made against the police, the reason, as I am sure that the House will understand, is that I have responsibilities in the investigation of complaints and police discipline. These matters must be considered in the proper way. On the other hand, hon. Members who have made complaints have not hesitated to clothe themselves with the privilege of the House in making such allegations.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must protect the business of the House. I shall call the hon. Members who have been standing and then I shall call the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), should he wish to speak again.

Mr. Robert Litherland: Bearing in mind the report in The Guardian this morning, does the Home Secretary agree that it would be unjust and unfair for the Master of the Rolls to give a judgment on the NGA when he is also a prime adviser to the Tory Government?

Mr. Brittan: The hon. Gentleman has distorted the facts completely. In any event, they do not arise out of the events last night.

Mr. John Townend: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the vast majority of the public expect the courts to deal most severely with those who partake in mob violence, especially when policemen are injured?

Mr. Brittan: The courts most certainly have the full powers necessary to deal with the offences that come before them.

Mr. Doug Hoyle: The Labour party does not condone violence and nor does the trade union movement. Was not the picket last night peaceful until the communications van was touched and was it not only after the communications van was destroyed that violence began? Will the Home Secretary examine that fact? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman also not try to escape from the fact that it is the Government's fault, because of their stupid legislation, that we are in this position? Will he use his authority in Cabinet to persuade the Secretary of State for Employment to intervene to bring the dispute speedily to a halt?

Mr. Brittan: The hon. Gentleman is seeking to erect almost the weakest excuse that I could imagine. There is no point in condemning violence without recognising the


fact that if 4,000 people come together in such a place, having been invited and offered money to come, one is creating violence and there are no excuses afterwards.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: With reference to my right hon. and learned Friend's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend), is he aware that many Conservative Members are deeply concerned that offences of violence are not being adequately punished by the courts? Will my right hon. and learned Friend monitor closely the sentences that are passed by the courts against those who are found guilty of having caused the disturbances and consider whether any further action by him is called for?

Mr. Brittan: I shall seek to ensure that the House has as much information as possible about the outcome of any proceedings arising from last night's incident.

Mr. Eric Deakins: How can trade unions, trade unionists and, indeed, the public have any confidence in the operation of industrial relations law in relation to the present dispute and in the impartial administration of justice, bearing in mind the political advice given by a senior member of the judiciary last year to a senior civil servant? Was not that a breach of a fundamental constitutional convention? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman unreservedly condemn that action?

Mr. Brittan: I certainly will not do so. If the hon. Gentleman reads the stolen document to which he refers, he will realise that it does not bear the construction that he has put upon it.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that most trade unionists realise that the attitudes of the Labour party in this matter are mischievous, directed against their best interests and positively malevolent, and that is why many more trade unionists voted Conservative than Labour at the general election and why the trend will continue?

Mr. Brittan: It is certainly correct that the majority of trade unionists do not favour violence or mass picketing and are embarrassed and ashamed by what occurred yesterday.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: How can the Government seriously claim that their employment legislation strikes an equitable balance between the rights of employers and employees when the trade union movement, which represents employees, is apparently banned from bringing other trade union comrades to the picket line to support the rights of the employees, yet the employer in this instance is allowed to hire a private army, wild dogs and apparently the police to defend his so-called rights?

Mr. Brittan: The hon. Gentleman's description of the four security men employed by the employer shows that he has never left the world of fantasy.

Mr. Roger Gale: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the cause of the dispute is the result of a minority seeking to impose its will on a majority that has already expressed its view by secret ballot? Does he agree also that, despite his generous construction on the silence of the Leader of the Opposition, the British public are likely to view his silence slightly less favourably?

Mr. Brittan: I still believe in the right to silence, but in this context, if not in the courts, there is also a right to comment.

Mr. Ron Brown: Is not the Home Secretary aware that his statement about the rule of law is a cover for legalised Fascism? Is he also aware that the terrible duty created by the Government is such that pickets will continue to fight for their rights for a job and a decent standard of living, and that the Labour party will be with them four square?

Mr. Brittan: I do not think that I or any other hon. Member need take any lessons from the hon. Gentleman about Fascism.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Is it not obvious that if the NGA were ever a responsible trade union it is now nothing but a conspiracy against the public interest? Is not it a great shame that Mr. Shah's resolve to stand up against last nights violence and odious behaviour was not matched by a similar resolution by the Newspaper Proprietors Association?

Mr. Brittan: No doubt he NPA will have heard that comment.

Mr. Norman Atkinson: Will the Home Secretary reconsider the carte blanche authority given to the chief constable in view of the evidence of the bussing in of 1,400 policemen? Did not the Home Secretary make an unprecedented statement by saying to the chief constable that, whether he was right or wrong, he would get the support of the Home Secretary?

Mr. Brittan: That is not what I actually said. I said that, if the chief constable uses his lawful powers to the full, he will have my complete support.

Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: Does my right hon. and learned Friend appreciate that the British people, whichever party they support and whether or not they are trade unionists, will agree that what they saw on television last night and what we are told will happen tonight is the most abhorrent concept of mob rule? They will judge for themselves at the ballot box those who did it, those who supported it and those who will not speak against it.

Mr. Brittan: I think that my hon. and learned Friend is right. I am concerned at the moment not with the ballot box but with avoiding further violence. I hope that the clear expression, by the overwhelming majority of hon. Members, by sound or silence, of their abhorrence of violence and their recognition that mass picketing is likely to lead to violence will lead to a de-escalation of what occurred and the saving of injury to life, liberty and property.

Mr. Robert Parry: I mentioned last week the injuries to pickets and the police. Since then, one of my constituents has sustained a badly broken leg and he was kept in a prison cell for an hour before an ambulance was called.
In view of that and of the presence of the thugs. heavies and minders of Mr. Shah, will the Home Secretary call for an urgent inquiry into all aspects of this case? Will he inform the House whether the Government intend to bring in the Army to support the police against the workers, as they did against the Welsh workers in the 1920s?

Mr. Brittan: I have received a letter today from the hon. Gentleman about the matter to which he has referred. I shall be looking into it and replying to him.
With regard to the other matter that the hon. Gentleman raised, I do not believe that a public service is done by making remarks of that kind. Our task jointly should be to try to persuade those who are involved not to risk further danger to life and limb. That is what I have been seeking to do by illustrating and explaining the magnitude of what occurred and seeking to enlist the support of as many people as possible on both sides of the House for the condemnation of violence and the taking of action to prevent it from recurring.

Mr. Harry Ewing: Is the Home Secretary aware that when, in calmer moments, the House and the country have an opportunity to reflect on the matter both will be greatly concerned about his hysterical and provocative approach? The Home Secretary said that he had given the chief constable of Cheshire an indication that he would give him all the aid and assistance that he required. As arrangements exist for forces to transfer officers to provide assistance to another force, what assistance does the Home Secretary have in mind? Surely he agrees that the House should have full knowledge of his thinking on this matter. What assistance does the Home Secretary have in mind to offer the chief constable of Cheshire if he asks for additional help?

Mr. Brittan: The hon. Gentleman is right. In practice, chief constables normally make satisfactory arrangements to obtain support from each other when their own resources are insufficient. It is obviously very much better that that is how it should work. However, section 14 of the Police Act 1964 provides me with a further power to secure assistance from one force to another. If it is necessary for that to be used, and if the chief constable gives me an indication that it is necessary, I will certainly respond.

Mr. Kaufman: The Home Secretary has asked whether the Opposition endorse the guidelines of the TUC. On behalf of the Opposition, I say that we readily do so. Since the TUC is so wise in the eyes of the Home Secretary, will he join the TUC in condemning the employer in the Messenger newspaper group for his intransigence? Since the Home Secretary says that the TUC is so wise, will he agree with the TUC about the damaging and disruptive effects of the Government's Employment Acts of 1980 and 1982?
Since the Home Secretary has twice this afternoon come to the defence of the Master of the Rolls, will he agree with the Master of the Rolls that the legal system is not, in practice, even-handed as between employers and unions and that current functions put the courts almost entirely in the business of restricting or penalising the latter and not of remedying their grievances?
Will the Home Secretary agree with his right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Pym), the sacked Foreign Secretary, who has said this afternoon that what we are witnessing in this country today is a gradual withholding of consent from the Government, the start of a rejection of civilised values, an increase in crime and lawlessness and one or two violent outbreaks of anger and frustration and that the consequences are a very dangerous threat to national unity and social cohesion? Is not the sacked Foreign Secretary right? Is it because he was right that he has been sacked?
When will the Tory Party return to conciliation?

Mr. Brittan: I understand that the right hon. Gentleman, given the difficulties that he faces, should seek to erect a smoke screen which has nothing to with matters that we have been debating. I suppose that it was unreasonable to expect the right hon. Gentleman to rise to the occasion and to seek to prevent violence tonight.
However, in spite of that, I welcome the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has endorsed the TUC guidelines, though, if he believes that my invitation to him to do so implied that I agree with everything else that the TUC says, he cannot be serious. I remind the House again, because we have a responsibility in this matter, of what the guidelines say, that picketing is permissible only to
do no more than peacefully obtain or communicate information or peacefully persuade workers to abstain from work.
I make no apology for repeating that there cannot be any possible need to have 4,000 people to do that.

Later—

Mr. Deakins: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In the Home Secretary's answer to a question that I posed a few moments ago on his statement, he referred to a document and said that it would not bear the construction that I placed on it. Is there not an obligation on the Home Secretary, in accordance with the convention of the House, to lay the document on the Table?

Mr. Speaker: I did not hear the Home Secretary quoting from the document, in which case it might have been necessary to do so, but I do not think that he did.

Falkland Islands (Peruvian Peace Proposals)

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I beg to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
new evidence relating to the timing of the Peruvian peace proposals during the Falklands war, in relation to the timing of the Prime Minister's order to sink the Belgrano.
I have to persuade you, Mr. Speaker, that the matter is definite. I refer to yesterday's Wall Street Journal. This is the first opportunity that we have had to consider the statements in that paper. Fifty-seven days after an article was printed in the Asian edition of the Wall Street Journal, we saw yesterday the very unusual occurrence of a serious paper prominently reprinting an article.
The article makes three specific statements. It says that the Prime Minister had the Peruvian peace proposals before her on the morning of Sunday 2 May. Yet she tells the House that she did not know of the Peruvian peace proposals until late that evening—three hours after the Belgrano had been sunk.
Secondly, the Wall Street Journal asserts that the Prime Minister had in front of her the reports of an important junta meeting that Saturday night, which came to certain definite conclusions.
Thirdly, the article says that the Prime Minister had in front of her the orders from Admiral Allara for Argentine surface route ships to return to the port of Uschaia. The reference is to orders given at 8.7 pm, and confirmed by the naval command in Buenos Aires at 1.19 am. Those orders were intercepted by the Nimrods with their AD470 Marconi transceiver equipment, decoded at Cheltenham

and reported to the Prime Minister. The orders were also intercepted by an American satellite and reported to the British. According to the Americans, they were before the Prime Minister shortly after she awoke at Chequers on the morning of Sunday 2 May.
The matter is urgent, because this is the only opportunity that we have to draw attention to an article published yesterday which, if true, is enormously damaging by implication to the credibility, prestige and reputation of the British Prime Minister.
The matter is important, because few subjects are of more concern to the House than the probity of a Prime Minister. There are two possibilities. The first is that the Wall Street Journal report is not based on fact. If that is true, there should be a call for an apology and, if none is forthcoming, I would expect the Prime Minister to take legal action. Alternatively, the report is basically true, in which case it would appear that the Prime Minister has misled the House knowingly on important matters of substance. It is one or the other. It is in that spirit that I believe that the debate for which I have asked should be granted.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
new evidence relating to the timing of the Peruvian peace proposals during the Falklands war, in relation to the timing of the Prime Minister's order to sink the Belgrano.
I have listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said about the article in the Wall Street Journal, but I have to say that the matter he has raised is not appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10, and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

Access to the Countryside

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to increase access to the countryside.
I make no apology for introducing a Bill that is similar to the one that I introduced in 1982, in effect, about a walkers' charter. When I introduced that Bill I hoped that it would receive Government support. Sadly, the Government chose to block it. On this occasion, I hope that they will think again.
I remind the Government that about one in five adults enjoy walking as a recreation. Nevertheless, over the past 20 years or so the opportunities for walking in this country have steadily been reduced. They have been reduced because many country lanes which 20 or 30 years ago were attractive for walking now have cars and other traffic, making them much less attractive for walkers and much less safe. Much countryside has been lost as a result of the ploughing up of downland and moorland and the draining of marshes. Furthermore, we have seen the spread of urban conurbations into the surrounding areas where people were previously able to walk.
A further problem is that, because of the increasing number of people who go into the countryside, many of the popular beauty spots in the areas where people most enjoy walking are becoming increasingly overcrowded. The process becomes self-defeating. If one goes into the countryside for peace and quiet and to enjoy nature, one finds as many crowds there as in urban areas. It is, therefore, important to search for new areas of access and make it possible for people to go to those new areas which in the past were restricted. The Bill aims to do that.
The Bill also seeks to make sure that footpaths are kept free from obstruction. In discussions that I had today with various people about the Bill, four different people told me about footpaths which farmers had blocked with barbed wire. It is amazing how concerned the Conservative party is about law and order, except when it comes to forcing farmers to keep footpaths open. I hope that the Government will make it clear that all footpaths should be kept free from obstruction.
The Bill seeks to make it possible for temporary diversions round fields where farmers are ploughing or where there are bulls for the time being. It should not be impossible for the Government to design a simple diversion procedure.
Next, the Bill seeks to make it possible for walkers to have the right of access to all moorland, woodland, publicly owned open space, the coast, and other areas where they would not cause damage. People should have the right of access unless the owner of the land applies to

a court for an order prohibiting people from going there. That would solve the problem of access which many people had hoped would be solved by the national parks legislation in the 1940s. Sadly, most of the national parks sparingly use their powers to introduce access agreements. My Bill would reverse that and increase access to larger areas of countryside where people would do no harm and could have a great deal of pleasure.
The Bill then deals with the creation of new rights of way, particularly bearing in mind the way in which leisure activities have developed. In many areas the old footpath network served the local communities, but they do not serve leisure activities particularly well. There is a need to signpost and waymark footpaths and to make definitive maps available so that members of the public can see where the rights of way are, particularly when they are obstructed or ploughed up by farmers.
The Bill seeks to produce a code of practice so that walkers, ramblers and other people who go into the countryside to seek peace and quiet are not disturbed by motorbike scrambling or people using off-road vehicles which roam the countryside destroying the peace and quiet, particularly of the green lanes of the downs of southern England. The Bill also seeks to find ways to reclaim some country lanes by reducing car access to them and allowing them to become walking routes.
Finally, the Bill seeks to ensure that all local authorities have footpath officers who can promote footpaths and the efficient use of the countryside. It is unfortunate that many of the metropolitan counties which have just started to take footpaths seriously now find that the Government intend to get rid of those footpath officers and return their duties to the districts which, in many cases, paid little or no attention to them.
The Bill seeks to improve access to the countryside, and I hope that on this occasion the Government will assist its passage and not block it, as in the past.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Andrew F. Bennett, Mr. James Lamond, Mr. Ken Eastham, Mr. Alfred Dubs, Mr. Martin Flannery, Mr. Jim Callaghan and Mr. Chris Smith.

ACCESS TO THE COUNTRYSIDE

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett accordingly presented a Bill to increase access to the countryside: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 16 December and to be printed. [Bill 66.]

SCOTTISH AFFAIRS

Ordered,
That the matter of the National Health Service in Scotland, being a matter relating exclusively to Scotland, be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee for its consideration.—[Mr. Neubert.]

Orders of the Day — Restrictive Trade Practices (Stock Exchange) Bill

[MR. PAUL DEAN in the Chair.]

Considered in Committee.

Clause 1

EXEMPTION OF CERTAIN AGREEMENTS RELATING TO THE STOCK EXCHANGE

Mr. Bryan Gould: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 5, at end insert 'for the time being'.

The Chairman: With this we are to take new clause 2 entitled "Duration":
`This Act shall cease to have effect on the first day of January 1987 unless resolutions to the contrary are approved by both Houses of Parliament during the three months prior to the first day of January 1987.'.

Mr. Gould: As we discovered on Second Reading last week, clause 1, which is the substance of the Bill, does, principally, two things. First, it puts an end to litigation currently before the Restrictive Practices Court, so that the restrictive trade practices practised by the stock exchange remain in force, and the court is not allowed to consider whether they are in the public interest. As we decided last week, it is exceptional for a Bill to do that. However, it is principally the second proposal to which the amendment and new clause are directed.
Clause 1 not only puts an end to current litigation and requires the Director General of Fair Trading to expunge from his register all the entries currently made in respect of the stock exchange; it removes from the ambit of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976 any practices, current or future, of the stock exchange.
The amendment and the new clause are designed to ensure that the stock exchange does not entirely escape the legislative grasp of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976 which has been supported in principle, and in detail, until recently by successive Governments. The amendment is designed to give the House the opportunity to maintain, and to revive when necessary, an element of control and review.
It will become clear in our debates this afternoon that without such an amendment the stock exchange would be free from the current court action, free from the provisions in the Restrictive Trade Practices Act and bound only by an extremely limited and totally unenforceable voluntary agreement, the terms of which appear to expire at the end of 1986.
By the end of 1986, when the main substance of the agreement will have been implemented, we must assume that one of two situations will have arisen. The right hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Parkinson), the progenitor of the arrangement, seemed in some doubt when he spoke on Second Reading about which of the two possibilities would occur. He did not seem to know whether the situation that he intended would arise or that which is now widely expected.
The first of the possibilities is that by 1986 the stock exchange will have carried out to the letter the agreement that it made with the right hon. Gentleman. It will have brought lay members on to the stock exchange council and, perhaps most important, it will have put an end to the minimum commissions system. Nothing else will have changed. The purpose of the agreement was to delay, defer of stagger change so that the single capacity rule and the maximum permitted holdings rule would remain in place.
If those admittedly restrictive practices remain in force without the amendment, no legislative mechanism will exist to deal with the continuing restrictive practices. The stock exchange could argue that it had done everything required of it under the voluntary agreement with the former Secretary of State. Without danger of contradiction the stock exchange could argue that the matter was at an end and that the Restrictive Trade Practices Act was no longer relevant to its operations.

Mr Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Is the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) right? He is assuming that the changes are minor and have been agreed by the stock exchange as a "pay-off to the Tory paymasters", as someone once said. The changes already taking place before the settlement are enormous. How does the hon. Gentleman answer the argument that the investing public will receive a four-year betterment much earlier than if we had waited for the court to rule?

Mr. Gould: It is not for me to speculate about the Government's motives in reaching the agreement. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) does not seem to have understood my argument that one of two outcomes are possible by the end of 1986. My view is that the outcome desired by the right hon. Member for Hertsmere is unlikely. The hon. Member for Selly Oak must ask his Government to explain, and resolve, the problem because they have argued from time to time that one of the merits of their provision is that important matters such as the single capacity rule and the maximum permitted holdings rule would remain in place and not be threatened or jeopardised.
If by a remote chance that were the position by 1986 the stock exchange would be subject to no spur to make further changes. The legislation would no longer apply to the stock exchange and it would have no further obligation to make changes. No mechanism for further control over the stock exchange's operations would exist.
A second possibility is more likely, although the right hon. Member for Hertsmere was anxious to avoid such an outcome to the agreement. It is that the announcement of the stock exchange agreement, to do away with the minimum commissions system, even over a period, will lead to such a breaking down of the dyke wall that the water will rush through. We see evidence of that every day. It is happening before our very eyes, within weeks of the agreement. Even in the last couple of days pension funds and investment companies have made submissions to the stock exchange calling for the early abolition of the minimum commission rule. They see the inevitability of what will happen. In many cases they welcome it, and rightly, providing that relevant changes are made.
If by the end 1986, as we expect, the rules, structures and institutions connected with the stock exchange have been swept away so that, as was said in the Second Reading debate, the stock exchange is quite different, we


shall have to resolve severe problems—for example, conflicting interests in firms which can do both jobs once the single capacity rule has gone. We shall no longer be able to rely on the cosy trust and confidence that has helped the stock exchange to resolve its problems. By then we shall need guidelines and signposts about what is to happen.
In the Second Reading debate I sensed a growing consensus that it was not good enough to leave the stock exchange to spin off into the wide blue yonder, and a totally unpredictable future where all the old conventions, principles and assumptions no longer apply. Hon. Members on both sides agreed that we need a clear statement from the Government that they intend to grasp the nettle and to introduce a statutory framework which, as I emphasised on Second Reading, need not and should not delve into the detailed self-regulatory matters currently undertaken by the stock exchange, but which at least should provide some guiding principle. We heard nothing from the Government. We heard no suggestion that such thoughts existed in Ministers' minds.

Mr. Nicholas Baker: Does the hon. Member agree that that might follow if one were setting up a totally supervised system, under a securities and exchange commission, for example? We are trying to erect a framework under which a self-regulatory system operates so we must wait to see how that system works.

Mr. Gould: The hon. Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker) may belong to the minority which argues that self-regulation is the total answer to the problems. I believe that there is a growing majority, not least within the stock exchange, that recognises that self-regulation in an unpredictable and new situation is unlikely to be able to bear the restraints put upon it.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: The structure proposed in the Bill is modified selfregulation—it is not a statutory structure with an area of self-regulation within it.

Mr. Gould: That is right. The modified system of self-regulation will deal with a changing position, whose main principles and features are quite unpredictable. The agreement bears the seeds of destruction of the current system, which makes it imperative that the Government give some sign of how they intend to resolve such pressing problems as the conflict of interest that may arise within a single financial institution.
It is unsatisfactory to leave matters hanging in the air, which is why the amendment and the new clause have been tabled. They will provide an opportunity for the Government and the House to return to the issue when the current voluntary agreement reaches the end of its natural term. We can then decide whether any remaining restrictive practices need to be brought back within the ambit of legislation.
The amendment will provide a statutory spur to further changes by the stock exchange. The minimal changes agreed with the Government were wrung out of the stock exchange only after some years of preparation for threatened litigation. Without the continued existence of legislation, we shall lose an important element of potential control.
I shall be interested in the Minister's comments on the amendment and the new clause. On the face of it, there appears to be no reason why he should not accept them. They do not purport to do anything violent to the essential structure of the Bill; they leave the voluntary arrangement intact until the end of its natural term in 1986; they allow an end to be put to litigation; and they remove the current entries from the registers. All that is retained is the possibility that the Director General of Fair Trading could require the stock exchange to register restrictive trade practices. They would give the Government and the House the opportunity to pursue that matter if either felt that the position was not satisfactory.
I urge the Minister to look kindly on the amendment and the new clause, which leave intact the major principles of the Bill. It would reassure opinion on both sides of the Committee if he could accept them.

Mr. Budgen: The Committee is grateful to the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) for the careful way in which he presented his arguments.
I cannot agree to new clause 2 because I am not sure whether it would be helpful for the stock exchange, after an interim period, to go before the Restrictive Practices Court once again. However, I agree that the idea that the deal can exist in some static form for the foreseeable future is clearly not supported by anything currently happening in the City.
The extent to which changes occur is uncertain and unknowable. It would be arrogant for me, as one who knows little about the workings of the City, to predict what structures may emerge after the interim period. But it is obvious that, with the ending of the system of minimum commissions, the single capacity structure is very much at risk. I do not want to bore the Committee with a repetition of the points that I made on Second Reading, but it is likely that there will be a move towards either dual capacity or multiple capacity.
The Government's response to that possibility has been inadequate. I accept that it is reasonable for them to say, "It is a fluid position, which we cannot entirely predict, but should it evolve in a certain way, regulations based upon the old club system will be inadequate and we will keep in mind the serious possibility—even probability—of introducing a legislative framework with some element of self-regulation within in it," but to give the impression that they anticipate that single capacity will continue for the foreseeable future and that, therefore, self-regulation can continue—albeit in a modified form—is laying the stock exchange open to real dangers.
Dual capacity at Lloyd's gave rise to conflicts of interest and to activities that must have discouraged people from risking their money in the Lloyd's market. It would be unwise for the stock exchange and the Government to say, "Let it all ride for a bit, and see what happens," but if there is multiple capacity and the conflicts of interest give rise to frauds and scandals, there will be a great deal of public reaction and the following system of statutory regulation will be far more restrictive than had it been introduced to prevent those frauds and scandals rather than to correct them after they had occurred.
I hope that the Government will make a clearer statement of their understanding that while a system of self-regulation works well with a small stock exchange of 1,000 people operating as a club—with self-regulation and all the social and business inhibitions that that brings


with it—they also understand that with multiple capacity and large amounts of outside and foreign money coming in there is a need for some form of statutory framework when the market has settled down. We are not asking for a promise to introduce legislation in six months. A little time must pass before the market has settled down, but when it has settled down let there be a legislative framework sooner rather than later.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South-West (Mr. Budgen), whose views and independence of spirit on this legislation—and, indeed, other legislation—are well respected in the House. Many of his points were powerfully made, and accepted by this side of the House.
On Second Reading I expressed forcefully the views of the Liberal and Social Democratic parties about the inadvisability of the proposed action. The spectacle of the Government intervening in or interfering with the process of legislation—not acting as honest broker, but against the wishes of one party—is bad for the standing of the Government, the Office of Fair Trading and the law.
5 pm
It follows that we wish to see the Bill voted down. Nevertheless, the point made by the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) is, in our judgment, a reasonable second best. One may take the view of the Secretary of State and others that this is the first step in a process of reform of the stock exchange to create something which the alliance would wish to see, and is committed to—a competitive stock exchange. This step will produce a continuous series of reforms that will move towards self-regulation. In other words, it will produce a tidal wave of change, to use the words of the hon. Member for Dagenham, of which the instrument will be the abolition of minimum commissions, with the inevitable consequence of the removal of single capacity in favour of dual capacity.
If such a process of change is instituted, as the hon. Member for Dagenham said, in a few years' time we shall not know where we are, or things will be roughly as they are at present. The best interests of the public will have to be reviewed in a few years' time, and the amendment gives us the ability to do that in either of those two cases and is therefore a reasonable second best.
A particular concern to us, and one that we hope will be the subject of the review, is the role of the Bank of England in the proposed agreement through the Bill. The bank acts in a dual capacity, both as the primary customer for the stock exchange and as its regulatory mechanism, in as much as there is one. That will inevitably produce a messy conflict of interest, which will be further complicated because of the Bank of England's special responsibilities towards the Government and the City.
The amendment, imperfect because it is an amendment to a Bill that we wish to see voted down, at least gives the possibility of a review of such circumstance in a few years' time so that the public interest may be best served, and judged to be served, by the operation of the measure and these provisions.

Mr. Anthony Nelson: I agree with the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) at least on the matter of Bank of England supervision. Some of us raised this matter during Second Reading, and, for understandable reasons, the Minister did not have the opportunity

fully to reply to these points. However, I hope that we shall have an answer, in today's debate, dealing with the Government's attitude towards the role of the Bank of England. Many hon. Members, whether they fully support the Bill or feel concern about some of its aspects, feel concern about the presumption of the Bank of England in, its supervisory capacity.
This is where my agreement with the hon. Member for Yeovil ends, because this is not just a second best amendment but a wrecking amendment. I urge the Committee to support neither the new clause nor the amendment because, essentially, a deal has been struck. A major point of contention has been raised by the Office of Fair Trading and put to the Restrictive Practices Court that has now been conceded by the stock exchange council and the members of the stock exchange. The reforms that have been agreed to and that will be implemented are proper ones while we await a. more radical overall review of the workings of the stock exchange. Many of us look forward to the introduction of a securities Act that will provide the overall statutory framework while allowing a self-regulatory aspect within the framework. Many of my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen), have spoken of this and supported it.
This is a wrecking amendment because a deal was struck, with the quid pro quo that the case would be withdrawn and the stock exchange would be given immunity. The amendment would mean reneging on that deal. Furthermore, were we to try to limit the legislation, that would make the stock exchange—for reasons wholly of self-interest I admit, but we have a proper responsibility to consider this prospect—resistant to the introduction of the reforms that we should seek.

Mr. Gould: I find it difficult to accept that either the amendment or the new clause are wrecking, as both would permit the agreement reached between the parties that is the basis of the Bill to be carried out in full. There would be no question of reviving the litigation, because that could be revived only after some years of registration and preparation for litigation and so on.

Mr. Nelson: It would be a wrecking amendment because it would be novel to the extent that, as far I am aware, no exclusions under the Restrictive Trade Practices Act are limited in this way. That novelty does not make it an impossible concept, but as far as possible when the House legislates we should make the laws, keep the laws and intend them to be laws. To try out laws on the country, corporate sectors, or sections of the community is not a desirable objective. It would be far better than having a time-limited legislation, if, after a few years, we as a House believe that in the absence of a securities Act or of necessary reforms by the stock exchange, there is a case for once more bringing this practice under the supervision of the court, we repeal the Act. That is the proper way to proceed. We pass an Act because we believe in our judgment that it is proper at the time and if it is no longer proper and we wish once more to subject the practices to the scrutiny of the court, let us repeal the Act.

Mr. Budgen: There may be something to be said for taking the industrial relations argument of a step-by-step approach. As long as the Government describe this as step one and, not the first and only step, we may be satisfied.

Mr. Nelson: If I understand my hon. Friend's intervention, he is now being a devil's advocate because in his speech he seemed to be, broadly speaking, against the amendment. I am not sure where he stands now.
I do not agree with a step-by-step approach inasmuch as it involves time-limited legislation. My hon. Friend refers to industrial relations, but that is another matter because we have been passing Acts successively over recent years that build on each other. None of that legislation is time-limited, as far as I am aware. This legislation is time-limited and in principle that is a bad thing. It reneges on the deal that most people within the market, and most who take the interests of investors seriously to heart, believe is in the interests of all concerned.
The legislation would restrain the stock exchange from making the necessary reforms or implementing them to the full, and there is a danger that, were we to try to limit the legislation in the suggested way, it would cast a shadow upon, or mean further uncertainty about, the introduction of the securities Act following Professor Gower's report. The Committee would be advised to pass this legislation, and not to time-limit it, but to give serious objective consideration to Professor Gower's report and at that time to try to make sure that we get the structure, the framework and the statutory scrutiny of the stock exchange correct, rather than hang a sword of Damocles over the stock exchange. That is not necessary, given the good will shown and the progress that its members and chairman have made to introduce the necessary changes.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: I shall echo the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) in exhorting the Committee not to pass the amendment. However, it would be right to get on record the fact that the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), representing the Opposition, put his points in a reasonable and restrained way. At first sight, my hon. Friend's description of the amendment as wrecking might seem too harsh. The hon. Member for Dagenham expressed mild anxiety and resentment about that adjective.
However, when one considers the amendment deeply, it is right to follow my hon. Friend's description of it, and not only for the reasons that he competently put about the undesirability per se of having legislation that is intrinsically time-limited for no good reason, or legislation that lapses automatically when there is no rational and tangible reason for that lapse to be superseded by something, or for it to slot into a subsequent development either of a legislative or administrative kind or for Governmental decisions.
It is also right to agree with my hon. Friend because of the way in which the stock exchange will try to respond to the July developments, the agreement in the Bill and all of the subsequent measures and decisions, some of which are extremely difficult and profound. There might be a special political colouration to Opposition amendments and it would be most unfortunate if such amendments interrupted the subtle and delicate process which is of major interest to the whole country. This is not an esoteric matter. I hope that the Committee will reject the amendment and new clause 2 for the reasons that have already been given and a few more.
There is a danger that we shall go over some of the ground that was covered on Second Reading. That is

perhaps not too harmful as long as we do not do so at too great length. Professor Gower's report is awaited by observers and others who are trying to improve the stock exchange's service to the public, its competitiveness and its openness. Radical reform is the present tendency. The Gower exercise is important. As was said forcibly on Second Reading, we are waiting for major legislation in some form of securities Bill—many of my right hon. and hon. Friends hope that there will be a securities Act in 1985 or 1986. It would provide in legislative form some of the decisions that are to be made by the stock exchange council and the membership in the difficult process of consultation flowing from developments in July and include some of the Gower recommendations and some EC directives. It might also consider how those directives link or conflict with single capacity or dual capacity.
Textually, intellectually and legislatively, the Bill is extremely limited and modest. It will only apply the Government's exemption of the stock exchange to the processes of the Restrictive Practices Court. It would be ridiculous to tailor-make complications such as time limits, annual reports and the rest. Such grave complications would undermine the central purpose of the Bill and make it much more difficult for the stock exchange to carry out its functions.
Consultation by the stock exchange of its members and implementation of changes to its rules such as to the minimum commissions and single capacity must now be broached by the stock exchange council with its members. That process will be complicated further by a time-limited amendment.
It would be wrong to accept the suggestion by Opposition Members that the stock exchange has not been and will continue not to be extremely effective under its old rules and regulations. It would be wrong to suggest that it has not effectively policed, controlled and monitored its activities, and provided an orderly, correctly regulated and properly administered market. To suggest as much is wrong and clearly unfair. I readily declare again my interest as a member of the stock exchange. Run by its able chairman, the stock exchange council will continue that effective control, subject to the opening of the stock exchange, which an increasing number of people will welcome enthusiastically. The more open it becomes to foreigners the better it will be. The council should be allowed to continue its work unimpeded by Opposition amendments that are probably more damaging than irritating.

Mr. Budgen: Does my hon. Friend approve of the idea that agreement to foreign money coming to the stock exchange should rest on the arbitrary decision of the Bank of England—a bank which, as everyone knows, has several roles in the City?

Mr. Dykes: My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) has just muttered something about that being a different issue. That is not what I was talking about, although that matter is dealt with in the Bill.
I do not assume that the existing exemption provision in the Bill will remain the status quo. There might be all sorts of changes and a new role might be devised for the Bank of England. There might be important legislation such as I have mentioned in a couple of years' time. My


hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) might be nervous about the Bank of England's surveillance operation. The demise of the Council for the Securities Industry was referred to last week. Although that might be a source of anxiety to some hon. Members, it is not central to this limited and technical Bill. I disagree with my hon. Friend and do not share his anxiety.
It would be wrong to be tempted by the amendment. At first sight it appears to be reasonable and it was presented reasonably. However, it would be an extreme complication and cause no end of trouble for the House when considering artificially an annual report that would not add to the substance of the decisions made. Indeed, it would provide a technical and grave practical problem for the stock exchange when facing difficult and important decisions henceforth.

Mr. John Ryman: I had not intended to speak until I heard the astonishing speech of the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes). I was utterly appalled by the complacent tone of his speech and by his contempt for many sensible suggestions that have been made in support of the amendment.
As I understand his argument, he maintained that any sanction which is imposed by legislation to ensure that the stock exchange carries out reforms—which it undertakes to carry out as a result of the monstrous arrangement by which the Executive has interfered with the judiciary's functions—should be regarded as wholly unacceptable as it might restrict the freedom of the stock exchange to act as it wishes in the future.
The hon. Member for Harrow, East carried his complacency to an incredible degree when he said that there was a case for legislation dealing with securities, the stock exchange, European regulations and so on. It would be wrong to deal with those matters now. Not having heard the tenor of the recommendations of the Gower report—he could not have done—he said that whatever Gower recommends will be good, and therefore we can introduce his recommendations in legislation. I know that the hon. Gentleman is experienced in these matters, but I say with deference to him that he is being not only complacent but unrealistic. In effect, he is saying that it is bad for Parliament to impose any sanctions or restrictions in this legislation and that Parliament should trust the stock exchange council completely, having secured concessions, and leave it to the discretion of the stock exchange council whether to proceed with these reforms. He believes that Parliament, the Director General of Fair Trading, and the Secretary of State should have no power to supervise and monitor those reforms on which work is being done. It is the credit of the stock exchange that it has made good progress on these reforms since the summer of this year.
I support the amendment because it seems to be very modest. If the stock exchange is sincere in its efforts to reform, it has nothing to fear from the amendments. Of what is the stock exchange frightened? The hon. Member for Harrow, East gave no answer, but only a wealth of platitudes and irrelevancies. He waffled interminably about matters that are outside the Bill's scope. I would gladly give way if he wished to intervene.
The effect of these proposals is to ensure that the stock exchange proceeds with these reforms within a reasonable period. I do not understand the simulated indignation that

has been shown or the objections that have been made to these modest proposals. That is my only point, and i do not believe that I can improve upon it by repeating it.

Mr. Peter Tapsell: I declare an interest as a member of the London stock exchange, although I speak as an individual Member of this House and in no sense as a spokesman for the stock exchange or even for the stockbroking firm of which I am a partner and a shareholder.
Over the years the press has been overwhelmingly in favour of the abolition of minimum commissions. I have always taken the view, and still do—I do not 'relieve that any other hon. Member expressed this opinion on Second Reading—that it will be against the national interest if minimum commissions are abolished. There are many reasons for this. It would lead to a good deal of skullduggery and would put the compensation fund, which has protected all investors, at risk. It would increase the cost of purchasing securities on the stock exchange for small individual investors. The abolition of minimum commissions would also produce a series of major strategic changes in the organisation of the stock exchange and in the organisation of the City of London as a whole. I believe that these would be damaging in the long term to the British national interest.
During the discussions that have taken place since 1979, successive Ministers and City editors have not fully thought through the implications of what is being proposed and is so widely supported, as their surprise at recent developments has shown.
The case before the Restrictive Practices Court was launched by the present deputy leader of the Labour party the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), who has been consistently hostile in his public remarks during his period in opposition to the interests of the City as a whole, in marked contrast to the recommendations of the Wilson committee on this sector of the City. Successive Conservative Secretaries of State made a serious error of judgment, after the Conservative party came to power in 1979, in not immediately removing this case from the Restrictive Practices Court, which was always an unsuitable forum in which to discuss the matter.

Mr. Gould: Why?

Mr. Tapsell: If it had to be referred anywhere, it should have been referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, where the pros and cons could have been fully argued. The Restrictive Practices Court has no expert knowledge in these technical matters. If the court had declared minimum commissions and other arrangements in the rule book of the stock exchange to be illegal or in contravention of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act, it would have had no constructive alternatives to put in their place, and that would have caused a disordered market.
We are told that the abolition of minimum commissions will cause a substantial drop in the income of many stockbroking firms. For 25 years I have operated almost entirely in the international stockbroking market where I have not been much protected by our minimum commissions. However, there are many stockbroking firms, including some of the leading and most reputable and those which have been of most value to successive Governments in helping to fund the national debt, which have perhaps the greatest part of their business in sterling securities and especially in gilt-edged securities so that the


fall in their income overnight might be almost catastrophic to them. Therefore, it is expected that the single capacity rule will come under tremendous strain.
During the last Parliament there were scandals allegedly arising in Lloyd's of London because of the operation of dual capacity. The House of Commons in its wisdom rightly imposed single capacity on Lloyd's. It would be most extraordinary if this Parliament in its first Session were to move in exactly the opposite direction for the stock exchange. I predict with certainty that the abolition of minimum commissions will lead to the abolition of single capacity, and that the abolition of single capacity will probably lead the stock exchange into abberations, difficulties and dangers such as those that Lloyd's has experienced in recent years.

Mr. Dykes: Does my hon. Friend agree that the nature of single or dual capacity in Lloyd's is different in character, substance and activity and legal implications from dual or single capacity in the stock exchange?

Mr. Tapsell: I accept that. Nevertheless, I believe that everyone would accept that if a stockbroking firm is also to act as the jobber the client of that firm may be anxious. I agree with those hon. Members who have said that strict rules must be laid down if we are to move from single to dual capacity.
5.30 pm
If many stockbroking firms have to make good their lost commission as a result of the abolition of minimum commissions by becoming jobbers, they will require a great deal more capital than they now need for carrying out their present stockbroking single capacity operations. If they are to raise the amount of capital that they are likely to need, they will ultimately find it almost irresistible in many instances to accept the attractive offers that many of them are no doubt receiving from overseas. It is true that there are some major British institutions that would like to take an interest in stockbroking firms, but Britain, because of the relatively small size of its industrial base when compared with those of the United States or Japan, does not have anything like the financial muscle of the great American and Japanese financial institutions, which will be able to pay a price for a share in British stockbroking firms which British institutions will not often wish to match.
We have been protected from a foreign takeover of the London stock exchange by its rules, which at present prevent a foreign institution or outside shareholder from taking more than 29·9 per cent. of the shares of a stockbroking firm. However, when foreign firms buy into London stockbroking firms to the extent of 29·9 per cent., it is understood that often they buy also a commanding share of their overseas business and an option to secure control of all the shares of the firm if and when the 29·9 per cent. rule is abandoned. I have no doubt that pressure from within the stock exchange to abandon the 29·9 per cent. rule will become irresistible unless there is legislation enacted by this House to stop it. The object is to raise more capital and 29·9 per cent. of a small stockbroking firm will not provide enough capital. Nor will it provide the foreign investor with what he is really looking for, which is total control of the British stockbroking firm.
This means that the House or the Bank of England will have to impose the 29·9 per cent. limit for ever, which will largely defeat the purpose of the entire operation if capital raising is its object, or the limit will go, in which case many of the top stockbroking firms in Britain will eventually fall under foreign control. It is my judgment that many of them are likely to do so. I have some knowledge of these matters, because I have probably visited no fewer than 30 foreign countries a year on business at any time in the past 20 years. I know that all the major foreign financial institutions in the world are following closely events on the London stock exchange. Many of the major institutions in Tokyo and New York will be interested in getting control of a leading British stockbroking firm if they can.

Mr. Ashdown: I have been listening to the hon. Gentleman with some interest. I think that he has made the most powerful case yet for voting in favour of an amendment which provides for a review in a few years' time, on the ground that we are launching into something when we do not have a clue about how it will turn out in the years to come. I hope that the burden of the hon. Gentleman's speech will lead him to vote in favour of the amendment.

Mr. Tapsell: I voted in favour of Second Reading and I support the Bill. I have already deplored the fact that these issues were allowed to drag on until July 1983. I think that the chairman of the stock exchange was right to reach the agreement that he did with my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State. I have already implied that my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Parkinson), the previous Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, grasped the nettle which should have been clutched by his Tory predecessors. I am entirely in favour of taking this legislation forward and taking the future of the London stock exchange and the City of London out of the hands of the Restrictive Practices Court.
The argument has been advanced in the past that the stock exchange in some way has fallen down on its job of protecting British national interests by not competing sufficiently in international markets. As I have devoted the whole of my adult commercial life precisely to doing that, I find the criticism rather curious. In so far as the stock exchange as an institution has not achieved a larger place in the international world, that has little to do with the stock exchange as such. The main reason for that is a number of factors, which include the excessively high rates of taxation which successive Governments have imposed on businesses of every sort in Britain, the fact that exchange control was not abolished until 1979 and the fact that stamp duty makes it more expensive to deal in London than in New York.
All those disadvantages are the faults of Governments of both complexions. It is no good blaming the stock exchange for the fact that it has always operated in international markets under considerable disadvantages imposed upon it by Governments. In addition to all these burdens, the Government should not further weaken the capacity of the London stock exchange to compete by forcing through the abolition of minimum commissions. If certain commissions are thought to be too high, they can be adjusted downwards. I hope that the Government will give second thoughts to the abolition of minimum 


commissions, because I believe that in the long run it will be very much against the interests of the stock exchange, the City and Britain for them to be abolished.

Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth (Stpockport, South): I hope, for the sake of his constituents, that the hon. Member for East Lindsey (Mr. Tapsell) exaggerated the number of visits that he makes abroad in the course of the year, in the same way as he clearly exaggerated his fears about the future of the stock exchange. It is clear that he is opposed to the stock exchange being referred to the Restrictive Practices Court and that he is not in favour of the Bill. That must be so because he is not in favour of the agreement which was reached between the stock exchange and the Government, which is the basis of the Bill. It is good to have the authentic voice of the dinosaurs of the stock exchange in the House. The hon. Gentleman has spoken against the major provisions of the agreement reached between the Government and the stock exchange.
The hon. Gentleman has rehearsed the argument that we have heard over a long period about the threat to the stock exchange if the proposed changes go through and are implemented. It is remarkable to hear a Conservative Member arguing so passionately and strongly against something which in many other circumstances he would claim to support, which is competition. He has condemned the proposed changes in favour of the protective stock exchange and a protected market. It appears that he is not in favour of open competition. I think the House will find that a remarkable state of affairs.
The amendment is a modest attempt to introduce an improvement, but it does not really do what is necessary. If the House were determined to take the right course it would refuse to accept the Bill and allow the proceedings to continue in the Restrictive Practices Court. I do not support the amendment with any enthusiasm, because it is only a stop-gap. I do not know whether the Labour Opposition intend to press it to a Division, but I think that the major business is to defeat the Bill and to rehearse the arguments against it being passed. The removal of minimum commissions will introduce competition. It is a measure which many people in the City, especially in the institutions, think is long overdue.
The hon. Member for East Lindsey says that the small investor will be damaged if minimum commissions go, but I do not accept that view. I have heard the argument in the banking world that the smaller account holders will be damaged if the banks are chasing around in real competition with one another as the banks will look only to the interests of companies and big business. When competition for the institutional investor becomes more intense and fierce, as I hope it will—that would be to the benefit of the investor—stockbrokers will look for new business and for new investors and we shall see the development of marketing and advertising and, I hope, an aggressive attempt to get more people to invest their money on the stock exchange. That would reverse the trend of recent times towards the domination of the stock market by the institutional investor. Only competition will bring that about.
The ordinary investor is now swamped by advertisements from institutions to encourage him to invest in insurance, pensions, unit trusts and various other devices, which are all backed by tax benefits. Perhaps there is a case for examining whether that is a wise way to develop the capital market and whether that is one of the factors

that have led to the lack of investment in industry. If industrial investments in this country had the same tax benefits as pension funds, perhaps we would see a long-overdue substantial change in the direction of investment.
The removal of minimum commission will lead to much greater competition. Evidence from the New York stock exchange shows that investors will benefit and that the market will become much more aggressive than hitherto.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: I should like the benefit of the hon. Gentleman's expert opinion on the small investor and so forth. Is he not aware that, like many institutions, the stock exchange runs on the Robin Hood principle that the large investor may pay a rather larger commission than he needs to, while the small investor gets the benefit? When minimum commissions end, it is likely that the large investor will get a much reduced commission, but that the small investor will pay a considerably higher commission. How will that help the small investor about whom the SDP is always talking so glibly?

Mr. Wrigglesworth: I am not in favour of prices being regulated by the transfer of the pricing of funds from one type of investor to another. It would be much better if those high commissions were lower as a result of competition. There is a need for stockbrokers to seek new markets. Substantial savers in this country do not invest directly on the stock exchange because they are never asked by stockbrokers to do so. I should like to see the position that I see at Grand Central station in New York. When I get off the train there and walk across the forecourt I see the Merrill Lynch stand, where I can talk to the stockbroker who is selling shares. They actually try to sell stocks and shares to the small investor, unlike in this country, where it has all been too secretive, closed and uncompetitive for too long.

Mr. Budgen: rose——

Mr. Wrigglesworth: I must get on, because I know that other hon. Members wish to participate. I think it is hoped that the debate will not extend too late into the night.
It has been forecast—I see no reason why this should not be the case—that the removal of minimum commissions will give rise to the ending of single capacity and to the introduction of dual capacity. That is not: to be feared and I do not share the view of the hon. Member for
East Lindsey——

Mr. Dykes: indicated assent.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: I see that I have the support on that point of the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes). It is not analogous to the Lloyd's position. It would be much better if the stockbroker were able to hold stock and sell to the investor. I see no reason why that should give rise to the type of malpractice in Lloyd's to which the hon. Member for East Lindsey referred.
It may be—we tabled amendments to take account of this—that, as the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) said on Second Reading, what we need to ensure that such action does not take place is a statutory base for the Council for the Securities Industry. My hon. Friends and I would like to see that. The investor must be protected against malpractice. The proposal put forward on Second Reading, which had been put forward before by the hon.


Member for Chichester, should be considered carefully by the Government, because it combines a statutory base with a voluntaryism that would appeal to many hon. Members on both sides of the House.
The Council for the Securities Industry is too much a part of the City itself and is not representative enough of the investing public. It does not have the power to issue subpoenas to bring witnesses before it and to take action against people who are abusing the system. It would restore public confidence, which has been shaken at times, and ensure that the investor is protected if we had a statutory base for the Council for the Securities Industry. I do not wish to see a Federal Exchange Commission in this country, but the proposal of the hon. Member for Chichester warrants attention.
The hon. Member for East Lindsey also mentioned restriction of entry. The hon. Gentleman wants to protect members of the stock exchange from the introduction to the exchange of investors not only from overseas but from this country. When I see the way in which our City institutions in some instances—not in all, thank goodness—have been outstripped, outmatched and outperformed by some of the major investment houses in other countries, I feel that I would welcome those investors as members of the stock exchange and the stimulus that that would give to competition, to the introduction of new technology and to the adoption of much more aggressive methods than have been used on the stock exchange so far.
There has been pressure for development in those countries, but it has been stymied by the restrictions on the stock exchange. I do not fear that the stock exchange will be taken over by foreign interests, as the hon. Member for East Lindsey emotively described it. I do not see anything wrong with foreign interests coming on to the stock exchange. After all, no one thinks that names in the City, such as Rothschild and Warburg, came straight from the sound of Bow bells.
The City has benefited from its international character, over hundreds of years. I shall not go back to Lombard street and to the institutions which have played their part in the international financial affairs of the City, but they have benefited the City enormously—no more so than in the banking sphere with the development over recent years of the Eurobond market. The foreign banks have played an enormous role in developing the market, to the benefit of London as a financial centre and to the benefit of the country.
I do not fear the thought that foreign institutions will buy into stockbroking firms. I am sure that the major financial institutions of this country will feel the same. If they become comprehensive financial service institutions, that will be to the benefit of this country. That is the way in which these institutions are developing in other countries. The pressure is exactly the same for that type of development here and I do not think that we need fear it.
If the Government are confident that the agreement they have reached with the stock exchange can survive the test of time and the test of public scrutiny, I see no reason why they should not agree, when the Bill is on the statute book, or even during the passage of the Bill through the House, to refer the stock exchange for scrutiny by the Monopolies

and Mergers Commission, which is what the chairman of the stock exchange said recently he would not mind taking place.
It is regrettable that the matter has been decided in private, without great public discussion. That is one of the principal reasons why we oppose the Bill. Many people would be relieved of anxieties and misunderstandings if the stock exchange was referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and demonstrated to us and to the public that it was not operating against the interest of the public and investors. I hope that during the debate the Minister will make clear his attitude towards that suggestion, taking into account the fact that the chairman of the stock exchange has said that he himself would not resist such a reference.
I hope that the Bill will not remain unamended tonight. The moderate amendment proposed by the Opposition is a step in the right direction. It would ameliorate the position. I hope that the Minister will accept it in good faith and demonstrate that he is harbouring no second thoughts or inhibitions about the deal that has been done with the stock exchange.

Mr. Nicholas Baker: The hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth) has evinced a strong dislike of the stock exchange and a considerable dislike of stockbrokers. However, I welcome the contribution that stockbrokers have made to the debate. In asking them how they think that the Bill will affect the stock exchange, as in asking eminent legal experts such as the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Ryman) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen), one gets different views.
A reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission might in principle be more relevant than the use of the Restrictive Practices Court legislation. However, to suggest that now, as the hon. Gentleman has done, would be effectively to administer the kiss of death.
I believe that the amendment is wrong, and I am sorry that the hon. Member for Blyth Valley is not in his place to hear my argument. It may be argued that the amendment is a mere amplification of an arrangement, but it goes much further than that. It certainly does not amount to the suggestion of a review. In practice, the amendment would not mean a review at the end of three years of the position of the stock exchange.

Mr. Ashdown: rose——

Mr. Baker: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman, but time is short.
The amendment would put the House of Commons in the position of a supervisor of the stock exchange. That would be bad for the House and damaging for the stock exchange. It would substitute the uncertainty of a suspended sentence for the uncertainty of court proceedings. It was agreed on Second Reading that the uncertainty about the court proceedings had caused some damage to the effectiveness of the stock exchange, and I do not doubt but that considerable damage would be caused as the process of law and the activities of lawyers proceeded over a long period of years. Uncertainty would be a major cause of damage to the stock exchange.
There is a curious disagreement about the effect of the abolition of the minimum commission on single capacity. The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) was very firm about it. He is convinced that single capacity will go.


Like some other hon. Members, I see no such certainty about the effect on single capacity. The stock exchange is capable of laying down rules that effectively protect the investor, and that is what we should be aiming at, even in changed circumstances.
I do not regard the Bill as the last word of the House of Commons on this subject. It is an important step, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South has said. If we were to accept the amendment, the Bill would stand on two steps at once. That would make it damaging and ineffective and would damage the value that has been obtained from the arrangement that has been made.

Mr. Ashdown: The hon. Gentleman talks about breaking an arrangement. By their intervention, the Government have broken the arrangement set up to put the stock exchange before the Office of Fair Trading and the Restrictive Practices Court.

Mr. Baker: An arrangement has been arrived at and the amendment would breach it. It is true that the Government intervened. What the Government are proposing, and what this Bill is effecting, is not a compromise involving litigation between one party and another. The circumstances are unusual. It is because I believe that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission would have been a much more appropriate forum that I believe that this arrangement is worth supporting.
Sooner or later, we will find ourselves discussing a securities Bill, and we will have to look at principles of self-regulation. When we do, I am sure that we will compare the workings of self-regulation in the stock exchange with its workings in other respects in the City. I am disturbed about how self-regulation will work in investment management.
Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry rightly decided to recognise the National Association of Security Dealers and Investment Managers, but he declined to recognise the Association of Independent Investment Managers on the grounds that that body was small and unrepresentative. I urge him to reconsider those grounds for non-recognition. I urge him to consider the rules that govern self-regulation. What rules does a body lay down, how does it administer its rules and how does it apply them when its members break them? I hope that my hon. Friend will think about that, and I am sure that after the Bill has been enacted he and the House will continue to consider how the stock exchange manages its affairs.

Mr. Brian Sedgemore: It is with trepidation that I speak on this subject. My constituency is contiguous with the City of London, and it is less than a 10-minute jog from my home to the stock exchange, but most people in Hackney are worried that the performance of the stock exchange does not benefit them as much as it might. They fear that the stock exchange does not divert enough of the nation's savings into industry, and that it does not allocate resources efficiently between one company and another. They would want me to support the amendment. One Conservative Member rightly said that the amendment was a wrecking amendment. It would be a good idea to consider the stock exchange again more widely in two years.
On Second Reading, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said that a principal role of the stock

exchange is to raise finance for commerce and industry. That suggests that, like those Parkinsonian figures of old, he has been promoted above the level of his ability. The stock exchange provides remarkably little finance for industry. Today I spent my lunchtime looking at the figures for commercial and industrial companies in recent years. Indeed, I have studied them for the past 30 years and they have not changed much. Those for recent years will be of interest to the Committee.
6 pm
In 1978, shares and debentures provided 3 per cent. of the investment capital needed by industrial and commercial companies. In that year, 77 per cent. of capital came from retained profits., 4 per cent. from capital transfers, 12·5 per cent. from bank lending and 3 per cent. from foreign borrowing. In 1979, shares and debentures produced only 2·5 per cent. of the money needed by industrial and commercial companies. In 1980, the figure was 5 per cent., in 1981, 7 per cent., and in 1982, 4·5 per cent. By no stretch of the imagination does that suggest that the stock exchange as an institution is providing a lot of the capital needed by industrial and commercial companies.

Mr. Peter Lilley: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that as a proportion of net new capital invested by industrial companies the amount raised on the stock exchange varies between a quarter and a third?

Mr. Sedgemore: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the financial tables, he will find that his figures are not correct. If he cares to put a note on the board, we can discuss the matter futher, but, having looked at this over a number of years, I am sure that his figures are incorrect. I shall even sit down to allow the hon. Gentleman to give me the source of his figures.

Mr. Lilley: They were contained in a study produced by the National Institute. I forget who the author was—I think that it was Prais—but I shall pass a note to the hon. Gentleman later.

Mr. Sedgemore: The hon. Gentleman must know that the figures are published on an annual basis in the financial statistics. He must say either that the statistics are wrong or that there has been a fundamental misinterpretation of them.
The residents of Hackney are also concerned because the stock exchange is not a good forum for allocating investment resources between one company and another. To allocate resources efficiently and according to the principles of Adam Smith and liberal economists——

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: And Karl Marx.

Mr. Sedgemore: And Ricardo and Karl Marx—they were all in it together, as the hon. Gentleman knows—three assumptions would have to be present. The first is that the effect of speculation is to stabilise the market price of shares. If that were not the case, prices and yields would be a false guide to earnings' prospects, and companies would borrow money at the wrong price. It is difficult to argue that speculation stabilises the price of stocks and shares.
The second assumption is that jobbers are always willing to quote a price, but there have been some periods in the history of the stock exchange—1974 comes to mind—when there was so much uncertainty that jobbers were unwilling to do so.
The third assumption is that one can forecast with reasonable reliability likely future earnings. There is not much evidence either way. A study by I.M.D. Little called "Higgledy-Piggledy Growth", published in the Oxford Bulletin of Statistics, showed that the growth of profits per share of different companies was largely random and that it was virtually impossible to predict future earnings from past earnings.
There is an unfortunate lack of evidence that the stock market, in conjunction with the new issues market, allocates resources efficiently.
For those two reason, I invite the Committee to support the amendment so that in a couple of years we can look more generally at the performance of the stock exchange. We are anxious that the nation's savings should go into industrial and commercial enterprise and that they should be used efficiently. As that is not being done at present, any opportunity to return to the wider subject will be welcomed by the residents of Hackney and those in the rest of Britain.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: I intervene briefly as I took part in the debate on Second Reading. It is quite obvious that only lawyers will be free from change, simply because there are so many lawyers who are Members of the House.
Those of us in the City realise that there will be change and that the Bill makes the best of a bad job. It is not a good Bill, but it is the best that could be done in the circumstances.
It has been suggested that overseas interests are a good thing, and one hon. Member talked about Rothschilds. One could mention the Rothschilds, the Warburgs and even the Samuels. However, they came here to take root, not to transplant that growth overseas. Britain needs to encourage all the talent that it can. Much talent has come here and will continue to come here. That should be welcomed.
It is not that the City worries about competition. In the end the Government will have to make a decision as to how they wish the City to be controlled. It is no good saying that the Bank of England can do it by winks and nods and around corners. It will have to be done on the basis of the Government and the House of Commons making up their minds.
This goes much wider than the stockbrokers and the insurance companies, a line which the Germans are now taking. In the Eagle Star takeover, we are talking not just about Eagle Star but about £3 billion of investment that Eagle Star controls. Therefore, gently over the years the control of the assets of this country may pass quietly into foreign hands. When major bids are made, the Government will have to say what is in the country's best interests. The view that people do not have to sell out unless they want to suggests that individuals should always decide what is best for the country. Therefore, we must be cautious about how much control—be it stockbrokers, insurances or banks—will pass into foreign hands.
In due course, when we come to the Securities Act and Gower, we shall have to discuss from where the country is controlled and where it is going financially.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: Surely in this sphere more than in any other we are dealing increasingly in international markets. That market operates 24 hours a day in New York, Hong Kong and every other part of the world. To

talk about the City as though it were a little island that operated irrespective of what happens in the world is living in cloud-cuckoo-land. Surely we want British institutions that are international and dominating world markets.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: If the hon. Gentleman and his party do not understand the difference between switching between investments in one world centre and another and control of the City of London resting in overseas hands, the SDP has a great deal to learn about the City, just as it has about everything else.
Where one's funds are controlled is important. It is important for the Government and the City to have a say over who controls them and in whose interests they do so. It is not insular to say that we do not want the City to be controlled by American, Japanese or Saudi Arabian interests. It should be controlled for the good of this country, and the House of Commons and the Government will have to judge when that situation arises.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Alexander Fletcher): My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) said that this was a mild amendment, mildly presented by the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould). It is a seemingly mild amendment. I do not think that it exposes disagreements across the Floor of the Committee, rather misunderstandings that I shall try to discuss.
The hon. Member for Dagenham remarked about the purposes of the agreement. The agreement was made not to delay or defer change in the stock exchange and in the City but to expedite change, which is happening now. There has been more change in the past four months in the affairs of the City and the stock exchange than in the previous four years and, in effect, going back much longer than that. The press is literally bursting with news every day of changes that are taking place in the City as a direct result of the decision made by Ministers in July this year.
The point had been reached where the Restrictive Practices Court action was impeding change and progress in the City. No hon. Member has objected to the need for change and greater competition in the City. It is something of a contradiction to suggest that the purpose of the agreement was to delay or defer change. The stock exchange is not being left to spin off into the wide blue yonder, either, as the hon. Member for Dagenham suggested.
The monitoring arrangements provide the link between the Government and the stock exchange and give both parties the opportunity to ensure the maintenance of a liquid central market and investor protection during this period of transition.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) and my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East recognised the present dynamic position. We are not moving from one fixed position to another in the City and the stock exchange.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West mentioned self-regulation. He gave me the impression that he felt that self-regulation was for smallish institutions and not for larger ones. I believe he is mistaken. Some of the larger stock exchanges in the world such as those in the United States operate a very effective and strong self-regulatory system.
A number of hon. Members have spoken about self-regulation and the changes that may be necessary to ensure


investor protection which the Government view as the most important aspect. While I would welcome exchanging ideas about what might happen in this respect in the future, this is not the occasion, not least because of the present state of dynamism and change.
Only this afternoon I received a copy of Professor Gower's report which I shall read with great interest. I shall try to expedite the release of the report to hon. Members and others outside so that they can give us the benefit of their advice and opinions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West asked about the future of single capacity. Single capacity will stay until it becomes necessary to replace it. Although that may sound a little Irish, the statement of my right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State in July was that single capacity would stay for the time being but that that could not be a fixed position.
If the needs of the users of the market and members of the exchange require a different system, the Government should not impose a delay. The duty of the Government, as was said on Second Reading, is to be satisfied that the system of investor protection is adequate and appropriate.

Mr. Budgen: Do not the Government believe that self-regulation will be appropriate if the securities industry is formed into multipurpose institutions?

Mr. Fletcher: Yes. The Government believe that self-regulation can be adapted from the present system and is the best way to protect the public in respect of financial institutions. The argument is: what is the frontier between the public interest for which the Government have a responsibility and the system of self-regulation? There is a point where these must meet. The Government must have some interest in the structure. Even in the United States, where there is an abundance of structures and legislation, the institutions have very strong self-regulatory systems. I hope that we can continue broadly as we are at present.
In considering Professor Gower's report we must examine what frontier there should be between the self-regulatory system and the Government, in this case the Department of Trade and Industry which fulfils the regulatory functions of the Government in the stock exchange.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) favours the reforms that are taking place, despite the fact that he finds the Government's action disagreeable. I suggest that there is some contradiction in his arguments today and on Second Reading.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East rightly paid tribute to the effectiveness of the stock exchange in maintaining a central market and investor protection. In view of the current healthy discussion, we should never lose sight of the splendid record of the stock exchange in looking after the interests of investors and users of the exchange.
I remind my hon. Friend the Member for East Lindsey (Mr. Tapsell) that the agreement between the Government and the stock exchange says that single capacity will remain at least for the present. That was the difference I found between Ministers and the Director General of Fair Trading in discussion after the general election.
As my hon. Friend may remember, one of the conditions of the director general was to abolish single

capacity, together with other changes he recommended. I do not criticise the director general for his point of view. I wish merely to illustrate to my hon. Friend that Ministers viewed the single capacity system as important during a period of transition. That system will remain, as will the 29·9 per cent. for outside investors and member firms, as long as the members of the stock exchange wish that to be the case. It is still managed by the council, which is responsible to the membership. My hon. Freiend may remember the overwhelming vote in the stock exchange council in favour of the Government's agreement.

Mr. Tapsell: The crux of the case is whether it is realistic for Ministers to think that they can abolish minimum commissions and retain single capacity.

Mr. Fletcher: That is not the view Ministers take In making an agreement with the stock exchange Ministers took the view that at least for the present single capacity should remain. We do not take a view on what system of investor protection should operate. We want to be satisfied that it is workable. If single capacity goes, it must be replaced by a system at least as effective as the present system.

Mr. Tapsell: I understand why the Minister says, as he did on Second Reading, that it is not the Government's responsibility to take these decisions. However, if the Government support a course of action such as the abolition of minimum commissions, with the inevitable consequence of putting the single capacity system under great strain, they cannot wash their hands of the inevitable consequence of a course of action for which they have taken responsibility.

Mr. Fletcher: I understand what my hon. Friend says. The Government believe that the abolition of these commissions is good and healthy for the competitiveness of the stock exchange, and we wish to see that. I believe it is not beyond the wit of man to have an investor protection system with minimum commissions abolished which is at least as satisfactory as the present single capacity system.
I travelled in North America to look at the systems there. I know a little about information technology and computers from the time when I used to work for a living. I was impressed by the systems used in the stock exchanges in North America.
The hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth) agreed that the spur of competition will expand the numbers of individual investors throughout the country. I formally endorse his view. The hon. Gentleman also suggested a new role for British Rail's redundant stations which I should love to see taken up. Never mind dull stockbrokers: let us have smart young ladies selling stocks and shares at Waterloo and Victoria stations. That will be much more attractive.
I was asked about the possibility of a reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. It is not for me to speculate whether that can happen at some time in the future. However, to suggest this is to miss an important point. We have just released the stock exchange to become more competitive. Fundamental changes are taking place in the City. If we imposed an MMC reference on the stock exchange, that would again delay just the changes that most hon. Members wish to see. Whether it should happen in the future, I do not believe that this is the time for such a reference to be made.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Cranborne) also spoke of self-regulation, which is much favoured by the Government. Clearly new circumstances require the adaptation of the present self-regulatory systems, and this is a matter that the monitoring process—the arrangements between my Department, the Bank of England and the stock exchange—has very much in mind.
I also understand my hon. Friend's disappointment at my decision on the Association of Independent Investment Managers. I assure him that I gave the matter very careful consideration, right up to the last appeal that was made to me just the other day, before having reluctantly to make the decision that I considered to be necessary.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) mentioned the role of the Bank of England. I remind him that the agreement was made between the stock exchange and the Government, and the primary responsibility for monitoring implementation falls to the Government. However, we invited the Bank of England to work with the Department in monitoring the implementation and consequences of the reforms. It is essential for us to be fully informed of developments not only in the stock exchange but in securities activities generally in the City. Given the bank's close involvement with the stock exchange and wider concerns with City institutions, I believe that it is uniquely well placed to assist us.

Mr. Nelson: I do not wish to prolong the debate, but I have to put to my hon. Friend the point that I tried to make on Second Reading. Wither the Council for the Securities Industry? Many hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have questioned whether the Bank of England has a conflict of interests in this matter. Even if it does not, many of us question whether it is ideally suited to decide the criteria for the selection of people to go on to the stock exchange council and its appeal committee and be involved pro tern in the supervision of these markets. Even if we conceded all those points, what, then, is the rationale for the CSI, whose chairman and much of whose membership are appointed directly by the governor?

Mr. Fletcher: I understand my hon. Friend's point but, as I said a moment ago, the agreement was between the Government and the stock exchange. The Government could hardly delegate their responsibilities in this regard to a non-statutory body such as the CSI. That is why we have been working with and getting the assistance of the bank in wider matters affecting the City as a whole. But we have had advice from the CSI. There have been meetings between my Department and the CSI. Like almost everyone else, the CSI has not hesitated to comment on the changes taking place. We greatly welcome its advice.
The basic philosophy underlying the Bill is that it is not appropriate for the stock exchange to be subject to the Restrictive Trade Practices Act. If that premise is accepted, although I appreciate that not all hon. Members agree with it, it is totally inconsistent to say that on a specified date the exchange should revert to being subject to the Restrictive Trade Practices Act. What is more, if it is inappropriate now, it would be inappropriate in 1987, and that is my fundamental objection to the amendment.
The result of the amendment would be a damaging period of uncertainty. We have come out of that, and naturally we wish to avoid that. The exchange would be in much the same position as it was in the period before 27 July of this year. The exchange would have to operate in the knowledge that at some time in the last quarter of 1986 the question of the exemption would be reopened and possibly reversed. This would not help it to plan for the future with any great confidence. It is bound to be a damper on change, and I am sure that that is not what hon. Members wish to see.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Before the Minister moves to a conclusion, I am rather anxious that he should deal with the question about the control of the City. Have the Government a view and a policy, or will they simply say that anything goes and that anyone can buy it if anyone will sell it? Are the Government concerned that the City and its interests could be controlled from overseas, and would that please them?

Mr. Fletcher: Rather than try to look into the crystal ball, I suggest that if my hon. Friend studies the events and the changes which have taken place so far in the City he will discover that a couple of foreign bids and a couple of domestic bids have been made. We take the view that the City and our financial institutions are capable of looking after their own interests.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: If my hon. Friend believes that, he will believe anything.

Mr. Fletcher: Obviously I have greater confidence in our financial institutions than my hon. Friend has. The only powers available to the Government, as to previous Governments, are those under the Fair Trading Act 1973 to intervene where a monopoly position has been created or where it it believed that the public interest would be affected.
I do not believe that there is any question of the City being taken over. The future of the City is very much in the hands of those who work and are shareholders in our City institutions. They will be bought out only if they sell out. They are able to choose between foreign investors and British investors if they decide that they want to take part in or form a larger financial conglomerate or some institution of that kind.
It is simply not realistic to think, as the amendment suggests, that we can switch on and off complex and expensive litigation of this kind like a tap. That is what the amendment would do. It would bring us to a point in 1987 where we found ourselves back very much in the position of the period up to July of this year.
The exemption of the stock exchange from the Restrictive Trade Practices Act simply puts it in the same position as—no better and no worse than—all the other bodies that have received an exemption. That being so, I invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to oppose the amendment.

Mr. Gould: We have had an interesting, though in some senses, a very long debate. It has taken up about 80 per cent. of the time available for the remaining stages of the Bill. I fear that the lengthy contributions to the debate, especially from Government supporters, have made it inevitable that we shall have to come back at 10 o'clock to complete the Bill's remaining stages.
I was puzzled by the apparently conflicting statements of the Minister. He assured me that the purpose of the


agreement reached by his right hon. Friend and the stock exchange was to expedite change. Within a few minutes of saying that he was assuring the hon. Member for East Lindsey (Mr. Tapsell) that the purpose of the agreement was to keep in place the single capacity and the maximum permitted holdings rules. This has been a conflict in objective that has never been resolved by the Under-Secretary of State, his right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State or the right hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Parkinson).
Nevertheless, I am encouraged by the response to my amendment if only because it has elicited, as did the Second Reading debate, a wide range of disparate views from Government supporters on the merits or demerits of this legislation. The most encouraging feature was that from almost every quarter, whatever the attitude taken to the Bill or to the agreement, there was support for the idea that some form of legislative framework was required. Almost every hon. Member who spoke in the debate agreed with that, save the Under-Secretary of State. While his opaque remarks sorely tempt me, simply as a measure of my disquiet, to press the amendment to a Division, I am more mindful than Conservative Members of the limited time available to the Committee and its interests.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 1, line 14, at end insert
'provided always that any such agreements under (a) and (b) above be made public'.

The First Deputy Chairman (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): With this, it will be convenient to take amendment No. 8, in page 1, line 19, after 'above', insert
'and shall at the same time publish any such particulars, together with any documents relating to such particulars which he has filed with the Restrictive Practices Court;'.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: The Prime Minister in 1960 moved a private Members' Bill entitled the Public Bodies (Admissions to Meetings) Bill. Introducing the Bill, she said:
Publicity is the greatest and most effective check against any arbitrary action."—[Official Report, 5 February 1960; Vol. 616, c. 1351.]
I agree wholeheartedly with that principle. The fact that a deal was struck with the stock exchange behind closed doors has caused great offence. If the Minister will accept the amendments, thereby enabling the issue to be aired openly, and ensure that in future such matters are kept in the open and under the public gaze, those who have expressed their reservations about the Government's action will be greatly reassured.

Mr. Gould: I wish to speak to amendment No. 8. I endorse the remarks of the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth), as the two amendments have almost the same objective. We are worried that the Bill is the product of a secret agreement. Not even the director general of Fair Trading was privy to the negotiations. The documents have never been published and we do not know what precisely is at stake. We are not able to judge the issues, we do not know how restrictive the practices are, how much they are against the public interest or the strength of the case prepared by the director general. It is important for us not to lose sight of these issues and to have

some idea of the size of the concession made to the stock exchange in the Bill and by the agreement on which it rests. Not surprisingly, I marginally prefer the amendment tabled by my hon. Friends and mysef, if only because it strikes at one important class of documents. Although the statement of case by the stock exchange is widely available and was laid before the Restrictive Practices Court, the director general quite properly considers that the statement of case by the Office of Fair Trading should not be made public while litigation is in progress. As a result, we have not had the opportunity of a full and proper debate on the issues arising from the Bill because one-half of the case has not been available to hon. Members.
A notable factor was that the right hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Parkinson) referred on Second Reading to the views of and documents prepared by the director general. Other hon. Members were unable to make such a reference since they had not seen the documents. The true purpose of the amendment is that we wish to see not only publication of the entries in the register but the documents filed before the court.
The object of the Bill is to expunge any record of the restrictive practices currently operated by the stock exchange. As all hon. Members agree that the practices might remain for the foreseeable future, or alter as a result of unpredictable forces and become even more dangerous, it is important that we have a clear picture of the present position. I hope that, when I move amendment No. 8, support is forthcoming from the Committee in that spirit and in the interests of open Government.

Mr. Ashdown: I shall try to keep my remarks as brief as possible in the interests of making progress. The Liberal party will support amendment No. 8 in the name of the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) should a Division take place. I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth) about the necessity of bringing matters into the open. As was said on Second Reading, there is the smell of the smoke-filled room about this agreement. Whatever Conservative Members may think as a result of the smell of the smoke-filled room and the secrecy of this matter, many suspicions remain in the minds of many hon. Members and many people outside. Anxiety has rightly been expressed about the fact that a Government w ho oppose restrictive practices now appear to be trying to preserve them.
The Government are in favour of market forces but now seem anxious to restrict their effect. The Government rightly complain about law breaking—for example, the disgraceful incident in Warrington last night—but in this instance they seem somewhat reluctant to follow the due processes that they have established. When the beneficiary in each case is a group of people who are regarded widely as friends of the Government and who contributed £350,000 to Conservative party funds, and when the person who made the agreement was not only the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry but also the chairman of the Conservative party—I do not make any accusations against the probity of the Conservative party or of any person—it is regrettable but natural that suspicions arise. It is important for the Government to be above such suspicion. I suspect, and I suggest to Conservative Members, that it is doubly important for the Government to be moving to a position analogous to that of Caesar's wife—above suspicion.
The present Attorney-General said on 15 June 1978:
But the public interest also requires that there is no misuse of secrecy to cover up errors or bungling or to avoid criticism."—[Official Report, 15 June 1978; Vol. 951, c. 1258.]
It is in that spirit that we wish to see details of the agreement brought into the open. We wish to know how many of the 173 stock exchange rules referred to the Office of Fair Trading were abolished by the Department of Trade and Industry's agreement with the stock exchange. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth) referred to the fact that Sir Nicholas Goodison is in favour of an open debate. We believe that the great weight of evidence that has accumulated and been placed before the Restrictive Practices Court will be lost.
We believe that it is important to have the open debate. Only by supporting amendment No. 8 can we ensure that an open debate will take place, establish what happened in those smoke-filled rooms and enable us to have access to and sight of such important evidence.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: On amendment No. 8, the documents filed by the director general with the court consist of his answer to the stock exchange's statement of case and his further rejoinder. Proofs of evidence have not yet been exchanged. The documents filed by the director general would be meaningless without being read alongside the stock exchange's statement of case and its reply to the director general's answer. The documents were supplied by the stock exchange on the basis that they would be used for the court proceedings only.
Section 41 of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976 provides criminal sanctions against the disclosure of such documents. For Parliament now to change the law to compel disclosure of information supplied on that basis would be the type of retrospective legislation that would affect and interfere with the rights of private individuals and about which hon. Members might justifiably complain.

Mr. Gould: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the statement of case by the stock exchange is widely available and has been read by many hon. Members who have contributed to the debate and that some parity is desirable?

Mr. Fletcher: That is a matter for the stock exchange. It is not a Government document and we would not wish to legislate to make it compulsory to distribute the document.
On amendment No. 3, the internal rules of the stock exchange are publicly available, so there is no need to press for that. The Committee knows that as soon as there was a significant agreement between the Government and the stock exchange, the House was informed. I am confident that if there were any other agreement the House would again be informed, subject to the need to preserve commercial confidentiality for a time.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: I listened to the Minister's reply with interest. As my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) said, we accept the argument of the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) that amendment No. 8 pinpoints the documents and representations at the court. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, No. 8, in page 1, line 19, after 'above', insert'

'and shall at the same time publish any such particulars, together with any documents relating to such particulars which he has filed with the Restrictive Practices Court;'.—[Mr. Gould.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 139, Noes 192.

Division No. 82]
[6.40 pm


AYES


Alton, David
Kennedy, Charles


Ashdown, Paddy
Kirkwood, Archibald


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Lamond, James


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Leadbitter, Ted


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Leighton, Ronald

 
Barron, Kevin
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Beggs, Roy
Litherland, Robert


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Bidwell, Sydney
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Blair, Anthony
McCartney, Hugh


Boyes, Roland
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Bray, Dr Jeremy
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
McKelvey, William


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Maclennan, Robert


Bruce, Malcolm
McWilliam, John


Caborn, Richard
Madden, Max


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Maginnis, Ken


Campbell, Ian
Marek, Dr John


Canavan, Dennis
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Martin, Michael


Cartwright, John
Maxton, John


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Meacher, Michael


Clay, Robert
Meadowcroft, Michael


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Michie, William


Cohen, Harry
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Coleman, Donald
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Corbett, Robin
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Cowans, Harry
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Cunningham, Dr John
O'Brien, William


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
O'Neill, Martin


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Deakins, Eric
Park, George


Dormand, Jack
Parry, Robert


Douglas, Dick
Patchett, Terry


Dubs, Alfred
Penhaligon, David


Duffy, A. E. P.
Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Eadie, Alex
Prescott, John


Eastham, Ken
Redmond, M.


Ellis, Raymond
Richardson, Ms Jo


Evans, loan (Cynon Valley)
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Fatchett, Derek
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)


Faulds, Andrew
Rowlands, Ted


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Fisher, Mark
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Flannery, Martin
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Skinner, Dennis


Foster, Derek
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Foulkes, George
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)


Freud, Clement
Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)


George, Bruce
Snape, Peter


Godman, Dr Norman
Spearing, Nigel


Gould, Bryan
Steel, Rt Hon David


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Tinn, James


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Wallace, James


Heffer, Eric S.
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
White, James


Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Wigley, Dafydd


Home Robertson, John
Wilson, Gordon


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Winnick, David


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Woodall, Alec


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)



Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd) Tellers for the Ayes:


Johnston, Russell
Mr. Don Dixon and Mr. Frank Haynes.


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)



Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald







NOES


Adley, Robert
Harris, David


Alexander, Richard
Harvey, Robert



Amess, David
Hawksley, Warren


Arnold, Tom
Hayes, J.


Ashby, David
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Aspinwall, Jack
Heddle, John


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Henderson, Barry


Baldry, Anthony
Hickmet, Richard


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Hicks, Robert


Bellingham, Henry
Hind, Kenneth


Benyon, William
Hirst, Michael


Berry, Sir Anthony
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Best, Keith
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Body, Richard
Holt, Richard


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hooson, Tom


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Hordern, Peter


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Bright, Graham
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Brinton, Tim
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Bruinvels, Peter
Hunter, Andrew


Bryan, Sir Paul
Jackson, Robert


Bulmer, Esmond
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Burt, Alistair
Jones, Robert (W Herts)


Butterfill, John
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Key, Robert


Carttiss, Michael
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Chapman, Sydney
Knight, Gregory (Derby N)


Chope, Christopher
Knowles, Michael


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Lang, Ian


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Lawler, Geoffrey


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Clarke Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Cockeram, Eric
Lester, Jim


Colvin, Michael
Lightbown, David


Conway, Derek
Lilley, Peter


Coombs, Simon
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)


Cope, John
Lord, Michael


Couchman, James
Lyell, Nicholas


Crouch, David
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Currie, Mrs Edwina
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Dickens, Geoffrey
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Dicks, T.
Maclean, David John.


Dover, Denshore
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Durant, Tony
McQuarrie, Albert


Dykes, Hugh
Major, John


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Malins, Humfrey


Evennett, David
Malone, Gerald


Eyre, Reginald
Maples, John


Fallon, Michael
Marlow, Antony


Favell, Anthony
Mather, Carol


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin



Fletcher, Alexander
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Fookes, Miss Janet
Mellor, David


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Merchant, Piers


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Fox, Marcus
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Franks, Cecil
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Freeman, Roger
Miscampbell, Norman


Fry, Peter
Mitchell, David (NW Hants)


Gale, Roger
Monro, Sir Hector


Galley, Roy
Montgomery, Fergus


Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)
Moore, John


Glyn, Dr Alan
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Moynihan, Hon C.


Goodlad, Alastair
Neale, Gerrard


Gower, Sir Raymond
Needham, Richard


Greenway, Harry
Nelson, Anthony


Gregory, Conal
Newton, Tony


Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)
Nicholls, Patrick


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Normanton, Tom


Grist, Ian
Norris, Steven


Ground, Patrick
Ottaway, Richard


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Hanley, Jeremy
Parris, Matthew


Hannam, John
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Pawsey, James





Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Powell, William (Corby)
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Powley, John
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Price, Sir David
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Prior, Rt Hon James
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Raffan, Keith
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Renton, Tim
Tracey, Richard


Rhodes James, Robert
Twinn, Dr Ian


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Viggers, Peter
 

Sackville, Hon Thomas
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Walden, George


Sayeed, Jonathan
Warren, Kenneth


Silvester, Fred
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Sims, Roger
Wheeler, John


Skeet, T. H. H.
Winterton, Nicholas


Soames, Hon Nicholas



Spence, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and Mr. Michael Neubert.


Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

Question accordingly negatived.

Clauses 1 and 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: It has been said during the proceedings on the Bill that the reference to the Restrictive Practices Court was restricting the stock exchange from making the changes that were necessary to bring it within the requirements of the Director General of Fair Trading. I and my right hon. and hon. Friends dispute that suggestion. There is no reason why the stock exchange should not have amended its rules and moved in the direction that it has now done before the court case came up.
We are not satisfied with the provisions in the Bill for the supervision of the operations of the stock exchange. We tabled an amendment to introduce a statutory council for the securities industry. In the interests of promoting competition and protecting investors, we believe that there should be a statutory body to supervise the stock exchange. The Bank of England is the biggest customer of the stock exchange, yet it is responsible for supervising the stock exchange. That cannot be right, and it is not in the interests of other investors that the biggest customer of the stock exchange should also be responsible for its supervision.
We want gilts to be sold by auction, so that the Government can save money on selling their debt much more efficiently and much more cheaply than they have done in the past, and probably will do under the future system.
Our principal objection to the Bill, and the reason why we shall vote against its Third Reading, is that the Government have done a deal behind closed doors. There are grave suspicions of political skulduggery because of contributions by the Conservative party. As I said on Second Reading, this is a dreadful action by the Government in intervening in a legal process. For those reasons, we shall oppose the Bill's Third Reading this evening.

Mr. Gould: The debate takes place at the very time when the Government are insisting in a different sphere, for doctrinaire political reasons, that statutory intervention is the only way in which to regulate the affairs of voluntary organisations, and are insisting, too, that litigation is the most appropriate way to resolve complex and difficult issues in industrial relations.
Today we see the consequences of that rigid reliance on legislation and litigation. That is the painful irony at the very time when the Government, in the securities market, are intent on passing the Bill which covers activities which would be much more appropriately dealt with by statute and which have been dealt with by an Act which has been supported by successive Governments for many years. The Bill removes from the Restrictive Practices Court, where there is a body of expertise, the litigation that should be put to that court.
I do not wish to repeat my Second Reading speech, but it is hard to reconcile the Government's argument that the Restrictive Practices Court is not competent to deal with the stock exchange with their argument that the ordinary courts are the only proper means of resolving delicate industrial relations issues.
The Bill leaves a sense of unease, even among Government supporters and on the stock exchange. Do the Government not have a view about the proper regulation of such an important element in financial policy? Do they have no view about single capacity, foreign ownership, and the avoidance of a conflict of interests? We are unhappy with the Bill and with the proceedings today, because no amendment has been accepted by the Government. We believe that it is unsatisfactory to leave the situation unresolved, with the stock exchange in limbo, at the mercy of unpredictable forces for change. It is a dereliction of duty by the Government, and it leaves the suspicion that they have been motivated more by political interests than by a proper concern for one of our country's major institutions.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: The Government have views on all the matters which the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) has mentioned, but they sense that the House now wishes to reach a conclusion on the Bill. I therefore commend the Bill to the House.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:

The House divided: Ayes 190, Noes 130.

Division No. 83]
[6.53 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Carttiss, Michael


Alexander, Richard
Chapman, Sydney


Amess, David
Chope, Christopher


Arnold, Tom
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)


Aspinwall, Jack
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Baldry, Anthony
Clarke Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Cockeram, Eric


Bellingham, Henry
Colvin, Michael


Benyon, William
Conway, Derek


Berry, Sir Anthony
Coombs, Simon


Best, Keith
Cope, John


Body, Richard
Couchman, James


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Crouch, David


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Dickens, Geoffrey


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Dicks, T.


Bright, Graham
Dorrell, Stephen


Brinton, Tim
Dover, Denshore


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Durant, Tony


Bruinvels, Peter
Dykes, Hugh


Bryan, Sir Paul
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)


Bulmer, Esmond
Evennett, David


Burt, Alistair
Eyre, Reginald


Butcher, John
Fallon, Michael


Butterfill, John
Favell, Anthony


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Fenner, Mrs Peggy





Finsberg, Geoffrey 
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Fletcher, Alexander
McQuarrie, Albert


Fookes, Miss Janet
Major, John


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Malins, Humfrey


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Malone, Gerald


Fox, Marcus
Maples, John


Franks, Cecil
Marlow, Antony


Freeman, Roger
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Fry, Peter
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Gale, Roger
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Galley, Roy
Merchant, Piers


Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Goodlad, Alastair
Miscampbell, Norman


Gower, Sir Raymond
Mitchell, David (NW Hants)


Greenway, Harry
Monro, Sir Hector


Gregory, Conal
Montgomery, Fergus



Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)
Moore, John


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Grist, Ian
Moynihan, Hon C.


Ground, Patrick
Neale, Gerrard


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Needham, Richard


Hanley, Jeremy
Nelson, Anthony


Hannam, John
Neubert, Michael


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Newton, Tony


Harris, David
Nicholls, Patrick


Harvey, Robert
Normanton, Tom


Hawksley, Warren
Norris, Steven 



Hayes, J.
Ottaway, Richard


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Heddle, John
Parris, Matthew


Henderson, Barry
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Hickmet, Richard
Pawsey, James


Hicks, Robert
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hind, Kenneth
Powell, William (Corby)


Hirst, Michael
Powley, John


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Price, Sir David


Holt, Richard
Prior, Rt Hon James


Hooson, Tom
Proctor, K. Harvey


Hordern, Peter
Raffan, Keith


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Renton, Tim


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Rhodes James, Robert


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Hunter, Andrew
Silvester, Fred


Jackson, Robert
Skeet, T. H. H.


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Jones, Robert (W Herts)
Spence, John


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Key, Robert
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Knowles, Michael
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Lang, Ian
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Lawler, Geoffrey
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Leadbitter, Ted
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Tracey, Richard


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Twinn, Dr Ian


Lester, Jim
Viggers, Peter


Lightbown, David
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Lilley, Peter
Walden, George


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Warren, Kenneth


Lord, Michael
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Lyell, Nicholas
Winterton, Nicholas


McCurley, Mrs Anna



MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Tellers for the Ayes:


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Mr. Douglas Hogg and Mr. Tim Sainsbury.


Maclean, David John.





NOES


Alton, David
Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)


Ashdown, Paddy
Bidwell, Sydney


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Blair, Anthony


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Boyes, Roland


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Barron, Kevin
Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)


Beggs, Roy
Bruce, Malcolm






Caborn, Richard
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Campbell, Ian
McCartney, Hugh


Canavan, Dennis
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Carter-Jones, Lewis
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Cartwright, John
McKelvey, William


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Maclennan, Robert


Clay, Robert
McWilliam, John


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Madden, Max


Cohen, Harry
Maginnis, Ken


Coleman, Donald
Marek, Dr John


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Corbett, Robin
Martin, Michael


Cowans, Harry
Maxton, John


Cunningham, Dr John
Meacher, Michael


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Meadowcroft, Michael


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Michie, William


Deakins, Eric
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Dormand, Jack
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Douglas, Dick
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James 


Dubs, Alfred
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Eastham, Ken
Park, George


Ellis, Raymond
Parry, Robert


Evans, loan (Cynon Valley)
Patchett, Terry


Fatchett, Derek
Penhaligon, David


Faulds, Andrew
Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Fisher, Mark
Prescott, John


Flannery, Martin
Redmond, M.


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Richardson, Ms Jo


Foulkes, George
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Freud, Clement
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


George, Bruce
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)


Godman, Dr Norman
Rowlands, Ted


Gould, Bryan
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Skinner, Dennis


Heffer, Eric S.
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)


Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Snape, Peter


Home Robertson, John
Spearing, Nigel


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)
Tinn, James


Johnston, Russell
Wallace, James


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Kennedy, Charles
White, James


Kirkwood, Archibald
Wilson, Gordon


Lamond, James
Winnick, David


Leadbitter, Ted
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Leighton, Ronald



Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Tellers for the Noes:


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Don Dixon.


Litherland, Robert

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — British Railways Bill

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

7 pm

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: I beg to move, That the Bill, as amended, be considered.
This general powers Bill was given an unopposed Second Reading on 15 March and has been considered by a Select Committee. The Bill covers a wide range of topics, including land acquisition.
The issue this evening involves part V of the Bill, as a result of which my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) has tabled the normal blocking motion. Part V deals with the power of Sealink UK Limited to charge for the use of the landing stage at Portsea.
I shall remind the House of the genesis of the landing stage. It came into being as a result of the building in 1870 of the railway to the Portsmouth dockyard. That meant that access to the normal hard was made impossible for those who nomally used it. It was, therefore, decided to provide an alternative access. The problem is that the landing stage is in a state of increasing disrepair. The whole landing stage will have to be replaced in the next four or four and a half years. The cost of replacement will be considerable. The estimated cost is about £475,000, not the £250,000 suggested in the statement circulated to hon. Members. Currently costs are met by Sealink UK Limited, but that company has been losing money on repairs. It is now necessary to take a serious look at the future of that facility.
The cost of £475,000 is broadly accepted by the Portsmouth city council engineer, but it may be helpful to the House to know the scale of maintenance costs during the recent past. Between 1970 and 1982, £95·645 was spent. The budget for 1983 is £42,000, made up of a general maintenance charge of £6,000, a charge to repair the concrete ramp of £12,000 and the replacement of the piles to the south of the mooring frame at a cost of £24,000.
Up to this year, the only moneys received have been on a contractual basis from the ferry company, which has been paying £1,500 per annum. It has done its best to help with the cost and has made ex gratia payments of £24,825. Hon. Members will immediately realise that the gap between the moneys provided and the costs faced by Sealink are continually growing. Although the new agreement with the ferry company provides for a payment of £10,000 a year, that is only starting now.
All the parties in the area—the Portsmouth city council, the Hampshire county council and those who use the facility—recognise the importance of the landing stage. But, as is so often the case, no one wants to put his hand in his pocket to maintain the facility. There is a belief that if nothing is done the facility will still continue. I regret that that will not be the case. About 3 million journeys by ferry are made each year, and the alternative to the ferry service is a journey by road of more than 30 miles. It is, therefore, important that the facility should be properly maintained and that proper arrangements are made for its future.
The Portsmouth Harbour Ferry Company has agreed to promote a Bill through its subsidiary so that it can take over the facility. I am assured that the Bill will be introduced this Session. When it finally passes through all


its stages, it will remove responsibility for the landing stage from Sealink—and no one will be more delighted than the board of Sealink when that happy day arrives, but it has not arrived yet, and the board believes that it must make contingency arrangements in case the Bill does not reach the statute book.

Mr. Peter Viggers: Could not British Rail have delayed the progress of its Bill pending progress on the Portsea Harbour Company Bill? We could then have dealt more neatly with the problem.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: That is an attractive idea, but British Rail does not determine the passage of legislation. We must deal with the position as it is, which is why clause 30 is included in the Bill.
On Second Reading my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) quite properly expressed his desire for a searching examination of the proposed charges for the use of the landing stage. I am indebted to him for his persistence. However, the successful passage of the Portsea Harbour Company Bill cannot be guaranteed, and the day of replacement of the landing stage comes ever nearer. We must also consider the Government's desire for more private capital to be injected into Sealink. It is for those reasons that we believe that the clause is essential.
We have taken into account the important points made by my hon. Friends the Members for Gosport and for Portsmouth, North and we are prepared to go as far as possible to meet their objections. Because charging for the facility represents a new departure, and to give the Portsea Harbour Company Bill time to go through Parliament, we have decided not to start charging until 10 July 1985. That should be long enough for the new authority to make its own arrangements.
The Portsea Harbour Company Bill, which is now published, provides for the new authority to make charges. I have been disturbed by the reluctance, indeed, the resistance, of local authorities to any form of charges. They have adopted an almost ostrich-like attitude towards that essential facility, which is becoming more and more decrepit. It is strange that local authorities and others are quite happy to support the new Bill, which also includes a provision for levying charges, but strongly resist clause 30 of this Bill.
We want to be sure that every possible opportunity is provided for consultation with those concerned about the new charges. To reassure my hon. Friends the Members for Gosport and for Portsmouth, North, and to be sure that the public who use the facility do not feel cheated by Sealink, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will give the House an assurance that any charges levied under clause 30 will be subject to the right of appeal embodied in the Harbours Act 1964.
I hope that the House will accept the assurance that nothing will happen until July 1985. If in the unhappy event of the Portsea Harbour Company Bill not reaching the statute book charges become necessary, the existing machinery of the Harbours Act 1964 can deal with the problems.
I hope that all who live in the affected area share the belief that an end must be put to the present unhappy position. I hope that the House will allow the Bill to pass on to its next stage.

Mr. Peter Griffiths: I intend to criticise the Bill tonight, as I did on Second Reading on 15 March. It is not becoming for anyone to say, "I told you so", but on occasions even politicians are right and their suspicions are proved to have been well founded.
On Second Reading I made it clear that I had no intention of attempting to stop British Rail from enjoying what has become almost an annual event—the British Railways Bill. It is wrong to rely on the goodwill of British Rail and its assurances that it would negotiate a satisfactory arrangement with the local authorities. I justified my previous blocking motion by saying:
In placing the motion on the Order Paper my motives and intentions were to do exactly as the motion said, and to give time between when the Bill was published and its Second Reading for British Rail to give evidence of its good intentions".—[Official Report, 15 March 1983; Vol. 39, c. 200.]
Despite this, at the end of the debate on Second Reading neither I nor any of my hon. Friends divided the House, because we assumed that having drawn attention to our strong reservations about the proposal to charge—there is nothing in the Bill about how much is to be charged—some notice would be taken.
We also object to the fact that the Bill has been pushed along by British Rail on the assumption that the number of people who are opposed to any part of it is relatively small. The Bill has separate clauses that deal with the separate parts of the country, and small groups of Members will draw attention to particular failings. The assumption that they will not be sufficient in number to stop the Bill passing appears to have given British Rail the attitude that if it simply waited long enough the opposition would go away. It is an affront to Parliament to take this attitude.
I take personal exception to the fact that we have heard that various discussions have taken place between British Rail and the Portsmouth Harbour Ferry Company, which have led to certain agreements and understandings. I should have thought that it would have been courteous for British Rail to ensure that such discussions and agreements were made known to any hon. Member who had gone to the trouble of placing a motion on the Order Paper asking that the consideration of the Bill be delayed. British Rail did not consider that that was worthwhile because there was not enough opposition. No attempt was made to communicate any of these assurances.
It is not good enough simply to rely on the good intention of British Rail in this matter. In particular, it is wrong, and probably constitutionally improper, to ask the House to pass one Bill on the assumption that another Bill which has not begun its passage through the House will become law, and will do so within a limited period, thus absolving British Rail of its responsibility.
British Rail has inherited the pontoon in Portsmouth harbour. I accept the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson) that British Rail is heartily sick of it and would be glad to be rid of it. Many of us would like to be rid of that which we have incurred. Many of us who have taken advantage of privileges given to us in the past would like to renege on paying for them.
The original pontoon was built because the building of the pier and the establishment of a railway station in Portsmouth harbour extinguished the historic rights of individuals to enjoy and use their own harbour. It


extinguished the rights of watermen, who depend on access to the harbour for their livelihood and impinged on people's privileges. Because the railway company sought to do justice when it took away the rights of ordinary people, it was given the obligation that as part of the harbour was taken away, a part at which ferry boats and fishing boats had tied up in the past, it would provide and maintain a pontoon at the side of the pier. It was taking away something that had historically belonged to the people of Portsmouth for their pleasure or duties and work, and therefore the company had to provide a facility, which was not subject to a fixed time.
It may be that over the years the costs of the repair of the pontoon have increased. However, so has the use that the successors to the original railway company, British Rail, have been able to make of the pier, and of the advantage of having a busy railway station and a deep water point at which large ferry boats can come in, and those advantages have not been gradually whittled away. Over the years, the advantage of having the pier and a pontoon has grown, but the cost and obligations have grown.
There is no doubt that it was intended by Parliament that there should be an obligation upon the successors of the railway company to maintain the pontoon. In practice, if they had done that on a regular, systematic basis, we should not be told today that British Rail is faced with the expenditure of £475,000. That suggests poor housekeeping.

Mr. John Prescott: Perhaps British Rail has been starved of sufficient money to be able to meet such capital requirements.

Mr. Griffiths: It is true that British Rail has, like anyone else, to decide its priorities. I am suggesting that if greater priority had been given to maintenance in the past it would not be faced with the capital costs about which we have been talking.
There is some hesitation about the figure. The notes that British Rail produced for every hon. Member refer to £250,000, but tonight we have been told of a figure of £475,000. It seems that the seriousness with which British Rail has approached the Bill, and the House, is not all that one might have expected from a nationalised industry, which one might have hoped would set an example to others in showing a proper and due respect to Parliament. It is approaching Parliament for the provision of new powers and privileges, which it cannot obtain elsewhere.
My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest has spoken of the broad general support for the Portsea Harbour Company Bill. He may be right in saying that, but I understand that there will be opposition to the Bill. That may mean that its passage will be delayed, or perhaps never come about. In that case, the assurance that we have been given tonight—an assurance that I am sure is given by my hon. Friend as an absolute promise from the sponsors of the Bill and British Rail to make no increase in charges until 1985—will not be particularly valuable. All that will happen is that in July 1985 British Rail will be able to say that it has not been able to make charges for two years, and has been deprived of income and will therefore have to make charges all the higher.

Mr. Peter Snape: If British Rail were to act in the way that the hon. Gentleman is outlining, I should have thought that it would meet with

widespread approval from the Conservative party. I have heard the argument about the Bill for the first time in this debate, but that seems to me to be fairly sound commercial practice. Is the hon. Gentleman in favour of British Rail acting as some sort of charity?

Mr. Griffiths: No, I should take the strongest exception to the idea that a nationalised industry should be a charity. Nationalised industries should accept their obligations, freely accepted until this time, and should not try to wriggle out of them. It is important for a body such as a nationalised industry to set an example, and I am sure that the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) feels that nationalised industries are fit to do so. However, that is something for another debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest rightly drew attention to the importance of the ferry between Portsmouth and Gosport. It is an essential link between those two important towns and forms part of a natural association between them. Portsmouth and Gosport have separate local authorities and separate civic identities, but the harbour does not divide them. It has linked them ever since the ferry was rowed.
My hon. Friend's point helped to demolish the suggestion that we should allow British Rail to make charges. He said that the alternative to the short journey across the harbour is a 30-mile drive. Indeed, it is lengthy and involves busy and difficult roads. It is not a practical alternative for the many thousands of people who cross the harbour each day. Such people are not just business men. Many of them are schoolchildren who are sent from Gosport to independent schools in Portsmouth. Moreover, a large number of people who work in the naval dockyard or Royal Naval establishments in Portsmouth or Gosport cross the harbour to get to work.
It is important for such people that the Portsmouth Harbour Ferry Company has kept its fares down. We should remember that we are talking about just a few pence. I noted that my hon. Friend did not put a figure on the fare that British Rail might try to impose. I understand that such figures have been leaked elsewhere, but they have not been leaked to me. Even if the sums involved are small, they will represent a high percentage of the fare and be a real burden on the parents who must pay it twice each day. Such fare increases would also be a burden on working people who have to make the ferry crossing. A fare increase would be a gross imposition on people who have chosen jobs, schools or homes on the assumption that British Rail would not be able to influence fares charged by the Portsmouth Harbour Ferry Company.
I should point out to the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) that the Portsmouth Harbour Ferry Company has done a grand job keeping its fares down, although it has a virtual monopoly. I pay tribute to it for that.
I take exception to the reference made by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest to local authorities. The local authorities in the area are unanimous in their dislike of the way in which this provision has been inserted into the Bill. The relevant authorities—Gosport, Portsmouth and Hampshire—are all opposed to it. It might be argued that they are being ostrich-like. They do not always agree on everything. It is hard to agree that those authorities are being ostrich-like when they have come together on behalf of the people who live in their


areas because they do not believe that the Bill is reasonable. Nor is it ostrich-like for local authorities to say that it is not their responsibility to pay.
British Rail has suggested that Portsmouth city council or Hampshire county council or even a consortium might like to take over the pontoon. Such a suggestion is quite contrary to the thinking of the local authorities. Their view is that a nationalised industry with immutable obligations is trying to shuffle off its responsibility and make someone else pay. It would appear that British Rail does not mind who pays so long as it is not British Rail. It is not reasonable to criticise local authorities that have been consistent and were prepared to discuss the issue with British Rail at every stage. They have always been willing to participate in a satisfactory arrangement.
If we were told tonight that any charge on people entering the pontoon would be subject to the agreement of Portsmouth city council, I should make a much briefer speech. That council is happy to take on the duty of approving the fare. I do not doubt that the other local authorities would be prepared to do likewise.
The local authorities' role has been to represent a large number of people in the area who use the ferry daily. It should not be forgotten, however, that many people use it in the summer for recreation. It is unacceptable that we should be expected to rely on the good will of British Rail with the longstop of an appeal to the Secretary of State. We all know how cumbersome such a procedure can be. That is no reflection on my right hon. Friend. It is a cumbersome procedure just to charge a few extra pennies. Effectively, British Rail does not want negotiations with bodies that are able to pin it down—the local authorities.

Mr. Viggers: I was hoping that it would be possible to obtain three agreements from the sponsors of the Bill. The first was that there should be no charge before 10 July 1985. That matter has been settled and the request granted. I understand that correspondence on the second is under way. It constitutes a contractual agreement whereby British Rail and Sealink UK Ltd. confirmed support for the Portsmouth Harbour Ferry Company in promoting the Portsea Harbour Company Bill which enables the latter company to take over the pontoon. I understand that that also causes no difficulty.
The third was that I sought confirmation that Sealink would not make any charge except that necessary to provide funds for its reimbursement for the net cost of repairing, renewing or replacing the pontoon. That would place Sealink's responsibility on all fours, as I understand that it would give Sealink powers similar to those held by the Portsea Harbour Company. It would ensure that Sealink would not benefit by profiteering—I use an emotive word—on the use of the pontoon. I understand that we are being offered not that commitment, but a different one under the Harbours Act 1964. I am worried that the Bill's promoters are not prepared to give us the stricter and tighter requirements for which I hoped.

Mr. Griffiths: It would not have been difficult to avoid the need for this part of the debate—I do not know what the Opposition wish to debate tonight—if we had been given some fairly simple assurances at an early stage.

British Rail might have taken the trouble to involve specifically those hon. Members who are known to have a personal and direct interest in this matter.
In case it should be thought that my lack of confidence in British Rail is and has been because of some personal feeling, I refer to the debate on the British Railways Bill on 15 March. The former hon. Member for Keighley, Mr. Cryer, when speaking to clause 28—it is clause 30 in the new Bill—said:
Clause 28 gives absolute powers, which are not unusual, to Secretaries of State. I am not happy for Secretaries of State to be given such powers, although they are accountable to the House. Hon. Members would like to think it is full accountability, but that is debatable. To hand over that power to a subsidiary of the British Railways Board and, moreover, a subsidiary that might be sold is highly unsatisfactory."—[Official Report, 15 March 1983; Vol. 39, c. 205.]
I accept the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport. The suggestion that there can be an appeal under the Harbours Act is not the type of assurance that we are seeking, and no one will satisfy me about that tonight.
It is not impossible that British Rail will sooner or later divest itself of its Sealink operations. I do not want to get into an argument about whether that is good, but I make it clear that my criticisms of British Rail would apply even more so if the Sealink subsidiary were sold and we were faced with a suggestion that, as part of the total commercial operation, the charges to use the ferry at Portsmouth were to be increased.

Mr. Snape: I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman again. It is a question not of British Rail divesting itself of Sealink, but of British Rail being instructed to do so by the Government in a policy which, I presume, the hon. Gentleman supports.

Mr. Griffiths: If the hon. Gentleman prefers me to say "being divested" as opposed to "divesting itself", I accept that correction because I do not wish to be controversial on this occasion, or at least not on that point.
The proceedings are not as smooth and easy as my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest suggests. The way ahead is shrouded in mists. We do not know whether the Portsea Harbour Company Bill will be successful, nor do we know whether or when Sealink will pass into other hands. This is not the time for British Rail to try to divest itself of a particular responsibility. It should be making it clear that it has that responsibility, and that obligation could be included in the negotiations with any successor company. There is no reason why there should ever be a charge to use that pontoon or why an ordinary citizen of Portsmouth, who over the years has given up a facility to the railway companies, should have to pay for the privilege of walking on a pontoon which was placed there simply to recompense that citizen for the loss.
My objection is to the concept of payment, and not especially about whether British Rail suggested that payment should be made. I want the pontoon to be maintained and repaired, and this should be part of the normal financial expenditure of British Rail. Expenditure of £475,000 is a large sum—but not to British Rail, as it is only a small part of its capital programme. This expenditure will not make or break British Rail in any one year, but it is an item with which British Rail could deal by making simple economies in other areas. This large sum of money might influence the views of a successor company. I am alarmed that a successor faced with that obligation might be deterred, unless he inherits the power


to make a charge—as was given to British Rail—and he can reimburse himself for his capital expenditure. I believe that this is unacceptable to the people in the area, and it is not reasonable to suggest that they should bear this cost.
It is clear from what has been said tonight that clause 30 is not necessary if British Rail believes, as my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest said, that with its active and positive support the Portsea Harbour Company Bill will be enacted. However, British Rail is not as confident as my hon. Friend. It is therefore pressing this matter. In paragraph 4 of British Rail's statement to the House—I shall not read the whole paragraph, as other hon. Members wish to speak—British Rail says:
Discussions over many years failed to provide a satisfactory solution".
That is a reflection more on those whose task was to seek the satisfactory solution—British Rail—than on anyone else. The statement continues:
proposals have recently been formulated".
We are all aware of that, because most hon. Members will have seen the Bill that is promoted by the Portsmouth Harbour Ferry Company. The statement says that Sealink
considers it both prudent and expedient to have the power to make a reasonable charge for its use; clause 33 seeks no more than that.
I object to the idea that the people of Portsmouth should have to pay to use something which was provided for them as a lesser privilege than that which they relinquished. The statement continues:
Should the landing stage be taken into other ownership, the power would lapse but, should Sealink's obligation remain unaltered, it would strenuously submit to your Honourable House that such a power should be made available by means of the enactment of clause 30 of the Bill.
With respect to my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, that is quite different from the scenario which he painted. We all know that many problems can arise between the printing of a Bill and its enactment.
I suggest in all seriousness that British Rail has not treated the House with the respect that it deserves. It has not treated individual Members with the courtesy that they would expect. British Rail should closely examine the tactics that it has used over the Bill to ascertain whether it can satisfy itself that an attempt to disregard local objections is a satisfactory way in which to proceed. Surely it is necessary to take account of local objections, especially when they concern a matter of vital importance to the local people but which is of only marginal significance to British Rail.
If it is thought proper for further assurances to be given on the way in which British Rail intends to operate, that may mean that the Bill can proceed through the House without being the subject of a Division. Unless there can be clear assurances given that British Rail will try to meet the reasonable requests of the people of Portsmouth and the surrounding districts, I shall have to reserve my position and consider carefully whether it is possible for me to allow the Bill to proceed unopposed.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I welcome the oppportunity to intervene briefly in the debate. On Second Reading I used the opportunity to raise one or two Greater Manchester issues, and I shall return to them. I wish to press the promoters to provide further assurances but I wish especially to press the Minister to provide them when he intervenes.
Everyone in Greater Manchester welcomed the fact that British Rail was introducing a Bill which sought powers to introduce a rail link to Manchester airport. I understand that there is the possibility of funds being available for a feasibility study, but that there is no guarantee that money will be available to build the short and modest piece of railway track that will provide a link with the airport. I hope that British Rail and the Government can quickly reach the stage at which they can announce that the feasibility study has been carried out, that the money is available and that contracts have been entered into for building the rail link.
Areas in the north of England generally, and especially airports, have had an unfair deal from the Government and from previous Governments. Manchester airport is almost entirely an example of municipal enterprise. It is a great credit to the old city of Manchester, and now to Manchester and the Greater Manchester council, that such an important international airport has been established in the area. When one considers the amount of Government assistance that has been given to extending the tube line to Heathrow and the money that is now being spent to extend that line even further to provide the extra terminal at Heathrow with a link to the tube one wonders why it is so difficult to find the modest sums that would be necessary to build the rail link.
The Government have spent a considerable amount of money on a public inquiry into the development of Stansted as a further airport for London. If that sum had been allocated to the rail link, Manchester international airport could have served in almost every respect as the alternative to Stansted. Without the addition to the rail network, it is still an extremely convenient airport for many travellers in the north of England and down into the Midlands. Once one is north of Watford, it is almost as easy to get to Manchester as it is to any other airport in the country.
When the Minister intervenes, I hope that he will give firm assurances that the money will be made available to enable the rail link to be built. I hope we shall have an assurance that the link will be provided and that it will be no longer necessary to argue on behalf of the project. I ask the Government to give a firm commitment that the money will go to the north of England.
One factor that has done more for industry in the Greater Manchester area than anything else is the development of the Manchester international airport. The position could be improved even further by the provision of a rail link. A great deal of freight comes into Manchester international airport and it would be a great help if some of it could be directed straight to a rail link rather than having to be transported by road. I hope that the Minister will tell us that the money will be made available, so that British Rail can proceed from its feasibility study to building the link.

Mr. Tony Favell: I heartily endorse what the hon. Gentleman has said about the rail link to Manchester airport. It is vital to the north-west that the link is built as soon as possible.

Mr. Bennett: I am sure that all Members who represent constituencies in Greater Manchester will want to emphasise the need for the link.
A small link line is proposed at Hazelgrove. When the issue was first discussed I asked for an assurance! that if



mainline traffic from Sheffield passing through to Manchester and Liverpool was to be diverted from the New Mills, Romiley and Gorton line there would be no harmful effects on the local railways. I understand that the assurance has more or less been given to Greater Manchester council, but I hope that further assurances can be given this evening.
If the link is built, I hope that it will be available for some of the freight traffic which now has to pass along a circuitous route from New Mills, on to the Denton and South Reddish line, back through the centre of Stockport and down through Cheadle Heath. I hope that that traffic will be able to benefit from the additional track, that the route will be shortened and that some of the nuisance that is caused by trains passing along that line will be reduced.
There is a great deal of evidence in Greater Manchester of the decline of the railways because of lack of finances. When the Minister intervenes, I hope he will make it clear that he believes that British Rail should have the money to invest in new equipment and new rolling stock. There are many examples of necessary modernisation. The Longsight repair sheds are antiquated and require considerable investment. A great deal of the rolling stock in the area is 20 years old or more, and much of the track needs a great deal of attention. We are giving British Rail the right to build short stretches of extra track and we must ensure that we provide the equipment and finance so that Greater Manchester can have a rail network of which it can be proud in the same way that it is proud of the international airport. An improved network will be extremely helpful to development within the area that will return it to prosperity.

The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): It may be helpful if I intervene now to restate the Government's view on the Bill. As indicated on Second Reading, the Government have considered the content of the Bill and have no objection to the powers sought by the British Railways Board. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has been reassured about the effect of the proposed construction works for the Manchester airport loop, following discussions with the board.
My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) has expressed concern about the effects of clause 30 on the use of the landing stage in Portsmouth harbour, which is owned by Sealink Harbours Ltd. The clause has given rise to a good deal of debate both on Second Reading and again today. This is not a matter on which the Government would wish to express a strong view as the issues are essentially local ones. I understand that the Portsmouth Harbour Ferry company has agreed that the responsibility for the landing stage should be transferred to it and that it is seeking the necessary powers in a separate private Bill, which was deposited on 25 November. Provided local agreement can be secured that would seem to be an ideal solution. In the meantime, Sealink is safeguarding its position by seeking in this Bill the power to levy charges in the event of the Portsmouth Harbour Ferry company not taking over responsibility for the landing stage.
It may be helpful if I add that it is my understanding that the right of objection to the Secretary of State under

the Harbours Act 1964 would automatically apply to any charges levied by Sealink under clause 30. That may reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North or at least meet his point. In considering any objection to a charge levied by Sealink—I know that my hon. Friends the Members for Portsmouth, North and for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) are concerned about this—the Secretary of State would have to apply the normal criteria in deciding whether a proposed charge was reasonable and he would certainly take into account, after the public inquiry, the costs being incurred in maintaining the landing stage. I hope that that will go a long way towards reassuring my hon. Friends.
I should like now to deal with the points raised by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell). The primary purpose of British Rail in seeking powers in relation to Manchester is to safeguard the necessary land. The initiative in making investment proposals rests with British Rail; but I am not aware of any proposal to be put forward in the near future. Ministers would consider any investment proposals carefully and would want to be convinced that they represented good value for money.
With regard to Hazelgrove, I understand that there are discussions between the Greater Manchester passenger transport executive and British Rail over future train services, but they do not envisage that the new connecting line will lead to stations such as Brinnington and north Reddish losing their train services.
Reference was made to British Rail's ability to find the necessary resources for investment. For the past two years British Rail has not come up against any Government-imposed limitation on investment in its own identification of investment proposals which it wished to take forward. I hope that that will be helpful to the House in considering the Bill.

Mr. Peter Viggers: While I have no general objections to the terms of the Bill, I must speak to clause 30, which has significant local implications.
The problem for the Gosport-Portsmouth ferry is that the ferry company decided some time ago that it would levy a single charge in Gosport for the journey between Gosport and Portsmouth, but no charge at all in Portsmouth. Someone making a round trip between Gosport and Portsmouth, making the two journeys, would pay only once in Gosport. Were Sealink to have the power to make a charge, it would by definition make the charge on its own territory, on its own land and on its own approaches in Portsmouth, and therefore would be faced with the inefficiency of having two charges, which the ferry company sought to avoid by introducing the concept of the single charge. The idea of Sealink being able to make a charge is nonsense and one seeks to avoid it. That apprehension was well expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) on Second Reading on 15 March.
We were prepared to allow the Bill an unopposed passage on the basis that discussions would take place and that progress would be sought on a more satisfactory longterm solution for the ownership and operation of the Portsmouth pontoon. That has happened and some progress has been made—progress which, in Committee, I am flattered to say, was described as "vigorous". The Portsea Harbour Company Bill, which


has now been laid before Parliament, embodies most of the agreement that has been reached and most of the agreement that we seek. It provides for the company to operate the landing stage as a public harbour undertaking and it contains comprehensive regulations under which the public harbour authority must operate.
Schedule 3 to the proposed Portsea Harbour Company Bill repeals clause 30 of the British Railways Bill, which will solve the problem that we are currently facing. But there is a gap to which we are now addressing ourselves and we need to ensure that there are proper transitional provisions if we are prepared to allow the Bill to proceed.
It would be reasonably satisfactory—not completely satisfactory—to allow the Bill to go through, provided that we have undertakings on the three points that I mentioned in an intervention to give my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson), who is sponsoring the Bill in the House, an opportunity to take some guidance and instruction from the sponsors outside.
First, there should be no charge before 10 July 1985. That should give a full year between the time when the Portsea Harbour Company Bill, given a fair passage, becomes an Act and a charge might be levied. I understand that that point is conceded and accepted by the sponsors.
Secondly, there should be no charge except any necessary to reimburse Sealink for the net cost of repairing, renewing or replacing the landing stage and its approach. That wording is much more closely drafted than the wording of the Harbours Act 1964, which says that the operator of the landing stage must make only "reasonable charges". I am trying to maintain and retain some of the residual obligations on British Rail which it first assumed in the 19th century when it arranged for the provision of a landing stage as part of its obligation in blocking the common hard. British Rail should accept that there remains a statutory obligation to maintain a landing stage, and it cannot wash its hands completely of that obligation.
I differ slightly from my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North on my next point. It is not unreasonable that British Rail, through Sealink, should be entitled to make some charge if it is now put to the heavy expense of renewing and replacing the landing stage. My proposed wording is a via media, a compromise, between the obligations under the Harbours Act and British Rail's total obligation.
Thirdly, British Rail, Sealink, the Portsmouth Harbour Ferry Company and the local authorities should confirm that it is their intention to support and assist in the promotion of the Portsea Harbour Company Bill and the takeover of the landing stage and approach by that company. I understand that that is included in correspondence between the parties. I also understand that there are several letters dated April and May 1983, the terms of which are confidential between the parties because they contain commercial information. I understand that that point is duly covered.
I have kept in touch with representatives of Gosport borough council and the Portsmouth Harbour Ferry Company, although I claim no authority to speak on their behalf. I think that there is indeed support for the concept of the landing stage being taken over by the Portsea Harbour Company and for that company to provide proper facilities in due course. I am assured that the Bill has widespread local support, but there might be objections

and we need to cover that by enacting the transitional provisions that we are now seeking. I expect that Bill to proceed through Parliament.
I regret that the British Railways Bill is before us today. In a perfect world the Bill would come back later, when we have tied a bow on the Portsea Harbour Company Bill and ensured that that has gone through, so that there is no gap between the two Bills. But that would mean delaying the British Railways Bill by about a year, and we have to face the fact that we have taken all reasonable precautions to ensure the continuity and reasonable operation of the Portsea landing stage. Therefore, subject to the points that I put to my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, and while I shall continue to watch the Bill like an eagle, I should not wish to divide the House tonight.
My attitude differs front that of my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North. I represent Gosport, which already has a very good pontoon facility provided by Gosport borough council, with the assistance of Hampshire county council. We are proud of our pontoon facilities and look with less than equal admiration at the facilities on the Portsmouth side. The fail-safe factor in the present operation is that Portsmouth corporation may have to assume more responsibility for the landing stage if it all ends in tears and we fail to get our Portsea Harbour Company Bill. We might then end up with a better facility which would be an improvement for all those whose land abuts Portsmouth harbour.
There must be a local authority responsibility to ensure the existence of pontoon facilities of a high quality. The residual obligation on British Rail should be quietly buried as neatly as possible. The undertakings that I have requested would help that to happen, and I hope that the Minister can give a positive response to my request.

Mr. Peter Snape: I have no wish to inject a controversial note into our deliberations at such an early stage. I shall therefore begin by complimenting the hon. Member for New Forest (Mr McNair-Wilson) on the style with which he set sail from harbour, expecting to find calm water, to explain the contents of the Bill and of clause 30 in particular. The hon. Gentleman was not far out of harbour when he was torpedoed——

Mr. Prescott: Scuppered.

Mr. Snape: Or scuppered, as my hon. Friend says, by another ship in his own fleet. It was alarming to hear the expressions used by the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) about clause 30. Clearly both sides of the House have a duty to look carefully at what is being imposed on the people of Porstmouth when one of their elected representatives has had to express in such strong language his reservations about the proposals.
I entirely agree with one comment by the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North. British Rail is indeed extremely remiss in its lack of communication with Members of Parliament, particularly about constituency matters. It tends to feel that it can leave such matters to its parliamentary agents. That is not good enough. It is especially incumbent on British Rail, as a nationalised industry, to advise hon. Members on both sides of the House when such matters are to come before the House, because any constituency Member worth his salt would


wish to participate in the debate, or to know exactly what British Rail intends to do in his constituency. It is a recurring and justifiable complaint made by hon. Members on both sides of the House that British Rail often fails to carry out such elementary courtesies, and hon. Members are forced to telephone the various departments of British Rail in an effort to ascertain the board's intentions. It is time that British Rail put that aspect of its public relations in order.
That is the only comfort that I can offer to Conservative Members. I must now criticise some of their remarks and say that I do not find myself in sympathy with the speech of the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North, whose main bone of contention appears to be that British Rail remains responsible for the upkeep of this jetty and pontoon. In the hon. Gentleman's opinion there are no foreseeable circumstances in which the original agreement with British Rail could or should be changed.
Let us delve into history and consider when and how that agreement came about. The pontoon and gangway with which clause 30 is concerned are maintained by Sealink—if I may quote the legalese of an internal board letter:
pursuant to section 10 of the Joint Portsmouth Railway Extension Act 1873.
It is difficult, 110 years later, to justify Sealink incurring any further cost from a facility from which it receives no direct or indirect benefit. In 1873, when the agreement was made, Britain was in the grip of railway mania. It is as inconsistent to demand that Sealink should continue to bear these costs because of an agreement made 110 years ago as it would be to insist that British Rail should maintain railway stations built at that time, from which, since then, the railway services have been withdrawn. The hon. Member for Portsmouth, North would not expect British Rail to staff and maintain the station at Blandford Forum 15 years after the railway line serving that station was closed. That is not a logical or tenable point of view, but that example is as fair as what which we are debating in clause 30.
I understand that the railway extension was closed and dismantled in 1949. It seems peculiar and inconsistent to burden Sealink with these costs—we finally arrived at the figure of £475,000 per year—35 years after the railway facilities were completely withdrawn.
I never cease to be fascinated by speeches such as that by the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North. On the one hand he would presumably cheer the flinty-hearted attitude of Ministers who say, time and time again, that public owned industries must pay their way. That is what they say when they put up the gas and electricity prices. They say that the railway industry—which they believe to be inherently inefficient—must pay its way. In particular, they say, the freight operations must pay their way, and there is no justifiable claim for subsidy. Presumably the hon. Member approves of those sentiments, but now he is saying that £475,000 is a drop in the ocean to British Rail, which should continue to maintain a structure from which it derives no financial benefit. His attitude is not unique among Conservative Members. He is saying, "Give me capitalism and plenty of it, but not, oh Lord, in my own constituency." The hon. Member is expecting a publicly owned company to provide a subsidy, although the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) said in his more

thoughtful speech on the same clause that it has an excellent jetty and pontoon in Gosport which is maintained by two local authorities.
Again, I never cease to be surprised at the common sense that one hears during these debates from Conservative Back Benchers. The hon. Member for Gosport advanced a fine defence of municipal Socialism. I commend his sentiments to his hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North and hope against hope that the appropriate county council and Portsmouth city council can get together to emulate the fine example set by their counterparts across the harbour in Gosport.

Mr. Peter Griffiths: I hesitate to cross swords with the hon. Gentleman, to whose speech I am listening with care. However, legal opinion is that the Portsmouth city council does not have the authority to divert funds towards the maintenance of the pontoon, and that doing so would be ultra vires.

Mr. Snape: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that information. I am in no position to challenge what he said, nor have I any wish to do so. It seems strange that across the harbour in Gosport it is not ultra vires to make such expenditure, whereas in Portsmouth it is. I do not know the reasons behind that seeming inconsistency. I do not know whether it is forbidden for the county council to chip in something towards the great costs of this facility. As we heard from the hon. Member for New Forest, no such contribution has ever been made or even favourably considered by either the county or city councils. To suggest that Sealink should continue to pay for this facility in perpetuity is not only economic nonsense but directly contrary to the views that Conservative Members normally expound on nationalised industries.
The hon. Member for Portsmouth, North looked into the future by suggesting—somewhat inaccurately—that when responsibility for this jetty and pontoon is removed from Sealink it will then fall on the successor company. The hon. Gentleman should carefully consider what he said. Presumably a private company will wish to take over the assets of Sealink. Privatisation is the name of the game, and the Conservative party professes to be greatly in favour of it. Given his knowledge of business, if the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North were the director of such a private company, I wonder whether he would willingly take over this aspect of Sealink's responsibilities. Would he commend to his shareholders that such a company should pay a not inconsiderable sum—£475,000 is not a drop in the ocean—to maintain a facility from which they would gain no benefit whatever?
What severe imposition is the wicked, publicly owned Sealink seeking to place on the shoulders of the hon. Gentleman's constituents? What sum is it seeking to extort from the hard-up community in Portsmouth? The internal correspondence sent to me by the Railways Board speaks of not more than 5p per person.
Many people, including many of the constituents of the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North, benefit directly from this facility. I may sound like a Tory, but I would have thought that the Conservative party would be in favour of people paying for benefits that they receive. Indeed, week after week in the House we hear lectures from Conservative Members praising that principle. It appears that the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North would dutifully trip through the Division Lobby to privatise


Sealink, to give away public assets and to put Toryism into practice in modern day Britain, but would seek to melt our hearts with stories of how Toryism in modern day Britain would affect his constituents. I leave clause 30 with some sympathy for the hon. Gentleman's point of view but with no great admiration for his political consistency.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), I am disappointed that the clauses relating to the railway works in the Manchester area are merely designed to resolve the ownership of land. There is no real intention of going ahead with this project in the short term. Like my hon. Friend, I am fascinated and depressed by the fact that it is always easy to provide public money for public inquiries into airports in the south of England. There is seemingly a bottomless pit of public money to set up inquiries into such things as the expansion of Stansted and whether the third London airport should be at Maplin, Foulness or some other God-forsaken place on the south coast. But when it comes to public transport links in the Greater Manchester area, which I know fairly well, money is never available and the best that we can expect is a feasibility study.
How many feasibility studies will the Minister need to be convinced that an international airport such as Manchester ought to be rail-served? How many such studies will he need before he decides to give the go-ahead, or provide the finance to give British Rail the go-ahead, to link Manchester airport with the adjacent railway line? It has been apparent for many years that such a link is needed.
Having served, a decade or so ago, on a passenger transport authority based in Manchester, I am struck by the fact that money is always available for extensions to the London underground system. I do not disagree with that principle. The London underground is a splendid system. At Heathrow airport, not only has there been necessary, desirable, but admittedly expensive railway extension into the existing airport terminal area, but there is to be a further expansion of that railway quite properly, if expensively, to serve the new terminal 4.
Turning to railway developments in the Manchester area, I remember the discussion, debates, arguments and pleas of about a decade ago for money towards the Pic-Vic tunnel, as it was then called. No money was available at the time, and no money is available now for Manchester railways links. This is a shameful way to treat the north-west.
I hope that even at this late stage the Minister and British Rail can get together to find what the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North would doubtless call the piffling sum needed to provide a much needed rail link to Manchester airport.

Mr. David Mitchell: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the initiative for instigating any such investment proposals rests with British Rail. If I receive such a proposition I shall give it the most careful consideration.

Mr. Snape: I am grateful to the Minister. However, that is a very old refrain. He knows full well, given the present political climate and the amount of public support that is made available for British Rail, that British Rail is very reluctant, to say the least, to put forward any such schemes. The Minister knows full well the reasons behind that reluctance.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I invite the Minister to look at the problems on the ground to see what a good job has been done at the airport and how close the railway is to it. For that half-mile or so of track an extremely good return would flow from any investment.

Mr. Snape: I trust that the Minister heard that invitation. Perhaps my hon. Friend would care to extend it to the hon. Gentleman's parliamentary private secretary, as they seem to be involved in such deep and earnest conversation. The hon. Gentlemen can visit Manchester and see for themselves the comparatively short distance that needs to be covered between the existing railway line and Manchester international airport.
If I were invited to visit Manchester as well, I could bore them with the tales of my time on the railway—I promise not to turn this into "All my yesterdays"—in an undistinguished career which began very close to the point at Heald Green on the Manchester-Wilmslow line where it is proposed the existing main line should connect with the airport. I hope that the Minister has heard my hon. Friend's invitation and will accept it.
I refer to the clauses in the Bill relating to level crossings and the resulting problems. The Bill omits any reference to the future of the railway line between Doncaster and Hull, a part of the world that will be not unknown to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The existing procedure provides for invocation of the existing law and an approach to the transport users' consultative committee with a view to withdrawing the service.
I mention the railway crossings and in particular those in the Humberside area. If the proposal to close the line, because of problems with a bridge which has a 60 mph speed limit, is carried through and the service is diverted via Selby over a bridge with a speed limit of 25 mph, very few railway lines will be left in Humberside for there to be any point in discussing the provision of railway level crossings.
When the House debates comparisons between various modes of transport Ministers continually pooh-pooh the idea of further investment in our railway system or say that such proposals by the British Railways Board will be considered.
I noticed in a newspaper report only this week that there was talk of men being stationed every few yards along the Severn bridge to check the number of heavy goods vehicles going past to ensure that too great a strain was not being placed on that structure. The Minister might not think very much of the railways, but I can tell him that we abolished policemen—"bobbies" as their successors are still known—standing by the side of the track 130 years ago. Perhaps when we discuss such Bills as this, Ministers—flinty-hearted and tough types though they may be in the present Government, with their Right-wing political virility to prove on every occasion—will pause and reflect that that old-fashioned railway system could provide many of our people with the sort of service that they require if some money was spent on it.
I do not know whether the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North indends to divide the House after hearing the Minister. I have no doubt that all will become clear in due course. Those of my hon. Friends who can be persuaded to accompany me into the Lobby opposite the one that the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North will be in will be more than welcome.

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. Does the hon. Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson) seek the leave of the House to speak again?

Mr. McNair-Wilson: With the leave of the House, I shall try to respond to some of the matters raised in the debate.
I begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Minister for his supportive remarks. I am grateful to the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape), who also supports the Bill.
I shall restrict my comments to those matters which were amended in Committee rather than stray into the perhaps more interesting world of the future of British Rail. Matters have been raised in the debate which require answers.
Listening to my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) made me feel how wise the promoters were to include clause 30 in the Bill. I had hoped, as I said in my opening remarks, that the new Portsea Harbour Company Bill would get a fair wind. I am advised that it is supported by all the parties concerned. My hon. Friend's statement that objections would be likely and that the timetable for this legislation could be badly delayed makes me realise that were it not for clause 30 we could easily see the deterioration of the landing stage continuing and no contingency fund of any sort established.
I find my hon. Friend's arguments about how we are to finance the landing stage extremely confusing. Someone has to pay for it. I pointed out that more than 3 million journeys a year pass over this facility. Although £475,000 is a great deal of money for British Rail, despite what my hon. Friend said, if that is divided amongst the number to which I referred just now it is clear that the charges need not be all that high.
I am therefore extremely concerned that we realise that these charges are not being levied for any other reason than ensuring the continuation of a facility which every one admits to be of importance to those living in that part of the country.
My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North also referred to the communications that he had not had and perhaps justifiably felt that he should have had with the promoters. I am again advised that he was approached at an early stage of the Bill and asked whether he would like a discussion and that he suggested he would leave that to Portsmouth city council. However, I make a clear offer to him and to my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) that if, after this stage is completed, they would like discussions with the promoters about any of the matters which concern them or which have been raised in the debate, the promoters will be delighted to have such a meeting as soon as possible. No one wants anyone who has taken part in the debate to feel that he is being denied access to information.

Mr. Peter Griffiths: I thank my hon. Friend for his latter comments. However, he has been entirely misinformed. No such invitation was given to me at any time. If my hon. Friend has been led to believe that by the promoters, it only adds to what I said earlier.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: I take careful note of what my hon. Friend said.
The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East mentioned his lack of communication with the British Railways Board. This matter was raised on Second Reading. I gave an assurance that it would be drawn to the attention of the chairman and other people concerned. I understand that that was done. If I have misled anyone, I did so on the advice that I was given. Whatever the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North, I hope that he will consider accepting the invitation to which I have referred. We do not want to have any misunderstandings on this serious matter.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport referred to the three conditions that he believed should be met if the Bill is to go forward. I am happy to tell him that they can be met. I said in my opening remarks that no charges would be levied before 10 July 1985 and that the Portsea Harbour Company Bill was to be supported by all concerned.
I am happy to give my hon. Friend the third assurance. Detailed costings of what is required can be made available. I caution my hon. Friend about wishing to see the sense of clause 6 of the Portsea Harbour Company Bill incorporated into this Bill. The provisions in clause 6 are a good deal wider than anything for which we seek approval. They would move away from my hon. Friend's desire for a tight definition of what the money is needed for.
The Minister was helpful in ensuring that hon. Members understood his role in the application of the Harbours Act 1964. I am advised that the Act states that any decision taken by the Minister would have to take into account the costs incurred in maintaining the landing stage after the public inquiry.
I hope that that information reinforces what I have said. There will be no open chequebook for Sealink UK Limited. Our desire is to ensure that we do not pass on to the taxpayers the cost of maintaining a service which is essential to some individuals.

Mr. Viggers: I am anxious to avoid any misunderstanding. My hon. Friend will realise that for the Minister to take into account the expenses incurred is a different formula from that which I suggested, which is that no charge would be made other than that necessary to reimburse the net cost of carrying out the work. To avoid any misunderstanding, can my hon. Friend confirm that my wording is acceptable to the sponsors of the Bill?

Mr. McNair-Wilson: It is acceptable. What I said about the Minister's role under the Harbours Act 1964 was a separate and reinforcing point.
We have had a long and interesting debate. I understand the anxiety of hon. Members about the changes that will follow when the Bill is enacted. I am convinced that an unsatisfactory state of affairs has existed since 1949 when the railway line was taken up. The British Railways Board has been saddled with a loss-making operation and that state of affairs must be corrected. If it is not, the facility may well disappear. If that happens, we would have much more hardship than would be caused by a modest charge to keep the landing stage properly maintained.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill to be read the Third time.

Orders of the Day — Northern Ireland

The Solicitor-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): I beg to move,
That the draft Judgments Enforcement (Attachment of Debts) (Northern Ireland) Order 1983, which was laid before this House on 11th November, be approved.
The law in Northern Ireland relating to the attachment of debts is contained in the Judgments Enforcement (Northern Ireland) Order 1981. The attachment of debt is the process by which debts owing to a judgment debtor from somebody else may be ordered to be paid by that person to the judgment creditor towards the satisfaction of the judgment.
At present, the Northern Ireland law provides that a sum standing to the credit of a person in a deposit account in a bank shall be attachable, subject to certain qualifications. However, there are exemptions. The law does not apply to any account in the national savings bank, a trustee savings bank or any bank having two or more places of business in Northern Ireland if the terms applicable to the account permit withdrawals on demand on production of a deposit book at more than one of those places of business. That is in article 72 of the 1981 order.
In that regard, Northern Ireland law is out of step with the relevant law in England and Wales relating to the attachment of debts, which is contained in section 40 of the Supreme Court Act 1981. That section applies to any deposit account with a bank or other deposit-taking institution and any withdrawal share account with any deposit-taking institution. A deposit-taking institution is one which conforms to the definition in the Banking Act 1979, which includes the three types of institution which I have mentioned as being exempted from attachment orders under existing Northern Ireland law.
The order before us reflects the fact that many people now operate accounts with a building society or a trustee savings bank as though they were bank accounts. Therefore, it is desirable that the procedure for the attachment of debts should be available in respect of sums held by a judgment debtor in such accounts, in the same way as it is available for money in conventional banks. That is what the order is designed to achieve.
I ought to mention that deposit-taking institutions, as defined in the order, include credit unions within the terms of the Credit Unions Act 1979. Section 83(1) of the Industrial and Provident Societies Act (Northern Ireland) 1969 precludes credit unions from banking or receiving money on deposit from their members. I understand that it is the Lord Chancellor's intention to introduce an Order in Council in which that provision will be repealed.
It is also the Lord Chancellor's intention to provide by order that sums of less than £50 shall be exempt. The commencement provisions of the order before us take account of that.
The Lord Chancellor has consulted the Northern Ireland Bankers Association, the Building Societies Association, the legal profession, citizens advice bureaux and the Department of Finance and Personnel at Stormont. The general view was that the draft order contained a welcome enlargement of the powers of the enforcement of judgments office.
The Lord Chancellor intends to make an order authorising deposit-taking institutions to deduct the

clerical and administrative costs of complying with an order made under the new legislation. Such an order has already been made for the corresponding legislation in England and Wales.
I do not think that hon. Members will require rue to take them through the provisions of the articles. It is perhaps sufficient to say that, by virtue of article 5, two minor errors in the schedule to the earlier order are put right and that article 1 provides that the main provisions of the order—contained in articles 3 and 4—shall come into force on a day to be appointed by the Lord Chancellor. I understand that that will not be before 1 March 1984.

Mr. William Ross: The problem with debtors lies not with those who attempt to pay their debts, but with those who try to avoid doing so. We are often approached by constituents who are owed money, sometimes considerable amounts of money, and who are finding it very difficult to get the money from a person who in fact has the money, but refuses to pay it. In so far as the order is an attempt to make folk who owe money pay up, it is welcome. It will, I think, make life a lot easier for many people in Northern Ireland, and perhaps harder—I hope it does—for people who are trying to avoid paying their just and lawful debts.
Most people try to pay, but when they see folk getting away with not paying it is like putting a rotten apple in a barrel—it tends to make the canker spread. I welcome anything that makes people accept their responsibilities, not only in their own households, but towards those with whom they have dealings.
I recall that this matter was raised in another context, and I have been racking my brains all day about where it was. I think that it was in the Northern Ireland context, and it possibly involved the payment of moneys to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. I wonder whether the executive—and other people—will be able to get its debts paid as a result of the order, because I believe that some people have been trying to hide money away. If the order helps the executive to recover rent arrears and other moneys that it is owed, so much the better.
When I first looked at the order, I was surprised to discover that there were institutions where the money could not be attached. The Solicitor-General told us something of the background, but perhaps when he winds up the debate he could go a little wider and tell us how this situation has arisen. This loophole was not created during the past year or two. It must have existed for somewhat longer than that. If so, why was the loophole not closed long since? It seems unusual that something like this should go on from year to year, possibly even from Parliament to Parliament, without being corrected.
I have looked at the possibility of the Lord Chancellor extending the list of institutions. I assume that this is an attempt to forestall people creating loopholes in the future. If I understood the Solicitor-General correctly, he said that before the list could be extended—apparently it will be extended in the near future—a further order would have to be laid before the House. I was glad to hear that. I believe that such matters should always come back to the House before authority is given to extend the list of institutions, because the implications could be wider than intended.
In so far as the law in Northern Ireland is now being brought into line with the law that prevails elsewhere in


the United Kingdom—which I welcome—I am anxious to know whether the law in the United Kingdom will be the same for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. As, apparently, the legislation on this side of the Irish sea has been different from that in Northern Ireland during the past two or three years, is the Solicitor-General in a position to tell us this evening what the effect has been in the application and use of the law in Great Britain? People take advantage of the change in the law, but the general public, and often hon. Members, are not made aware of it until it has been in operation for many years. If there have been occasions in Great Britain when hardship has been caused, or when there have been unforeseen circumstances, the House should be told about them before the order is passed.
How on earth can the courts, or anybody else, find out whether a debtor has money on deposit? If a debtor has money on deposit, how can anyone discover where it is? A debtor could have money and not talk about it, so that even the courts do not know that the money exists. What happens if deposits are held in a wife's or child's name? Can any machinery make the court aware of such money? What happens if money is held in a company's name? Will the courts be aware of that? Many small companies are set up involving only two or three people, and it might be difficult for a court to discover whether money is available.
A recent inquiry into the De Lorean mess—that is the only word for it—revealed that considerable sums were moved out of the country. If that happens again, can the money be seized and used to pay debts? Those who want to avoid paying money will always find a way. I hope that in blocking one loophole we are not allowing other and more dangerous loopholes to remain open.
I am curious about why the opportunity was not taken in the order to ensure that whenever a court order for payment is made it is enforced until the entire debt is paid. We all know of cases where court orders are made, the individual involved changes address, pays once or twice then stops paying, and the unfortunate individual to whom the money is owed has to go through the whole miserable sequence of events again, to find that the same happens yet again. Why has that possibility not been dealt with in the order, because it causes anxiety?
Why is the order being used to correct errors referred to in article 5? It might have been neater and easier to make the adjustments in a separate order which could have been taken formally. It appears that we are tying two different matters together in the same order. That is, perhaps, a mistake.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: This is an unsatisfactory way to legislate. That view will not come as a surprise to the House. Indeed, my hon. Friends and I look forward to the time when one part of the United Kingdom will no longer have its laws made in this form. We are encouraged in that hope by the fact that on a policy manifesto which included the abolition of direct rule, of which this order is one aspect, we won the election in June in the most striking manner.
This is a bad way to legislate. The proper method would have been to have introduced a Bill. The order is a good illustration of the deficiencies of this procedure. We are,

in 1983, amending the Judgments Enforcement (Northern Ireland) Order 1981. The learned Solicitor-General must tell us whether the matters for which the order provides were overlooked in 1981. If so, why were they overlooked?
The Solicitor-General said that the order will bring the law in Northern Ireland into accord with that in England and Wales, and he quoted the Supreme Court Act 1981 as the corresponding legislation on this side of the water. But I rather gathered from his phraseology that the provision in the 1981 Act had previously existed, and was subsumed in that Act. Even if it appeared in the 1981 Act for the first time, why was legislation for Northern Ireland in the same year allowed to pass through the House—in all innocence by hon. Members on these Benches, who do their best to take a view on these matters—which put Northern Ireland out of line with the legislation in England and Wales?
The Solicitor-General pointed out that people are now using building societies and trustee savings banks rather like ordinary banks. But that has not happened since 1981—that was just as much the case when the order was made in 1981 as it is today. No doubt the habit of using trustee savings banks in that way has developed and become more widespread in those two years, but it is not a novelty; it is not something invented between 1981 and 1983. This matter could have been thought of, should have been thought of, and should have been provided for, when we last legislated on this subject in 1981.
I must voice a suspicion, which I hope is not unworthy, that if those who prepared the legislation were preparing it as it should have been put forward, in the form of a Bill, and with the knowledge that they could not dot the i's and cross the t's afterwards through an order that keeps the House late for one and a half hours at night, they would have been more careful. They would know that it was unlikely that the legislation committee of the Cabinet would look kindly upon the same Minister coming forward two years later and saying to his colleagues, "I am sorry to have to tell you, but there are some things that we forgot to put in the 1981 Bill. Can we please have another Bill?" The Minister would receive an unpleasant reaction.
However, because legislation is being passed by Order in Council, people say, "That is only Northern Ireland and if anything occurs after it has been passed we can always have another order." Perhaps the Solicitor-General can refute my observations, but on the face of it they are evidence of slipshod legislation two years ago. I regret that I have found other evidence to that effect. When I studied the order I was considerably offended as a parliamentarian to discover in article 3(4) that the Lord Chancellor can alter almost whatever we put into it, add to it or subtract from it by another order.
I suppose that, having had the unpleasant experience of discovering how much they forgot when drafting the 1981 order, the parliamentary draftsmen—the offshoot of that great race that still survive somewhere in the interstices of the Stormont rabbit warren—said, "We must not risk this again. Let us put something into the article so that we can do it with an order that does not have to come before the House of Commons, and so our faces will not be red."
We are invited tonight not merely to accept the order but to enable the Lord Chancellor, without further reference to us, to do anything with the order that he likes—to add anything to it or subtract anything from it. It is true that, of his generosity, the learned Solicitor-General


gave us a specimen in his speech of what the Lord Chancellor might do, and very instructive it was. He said that the credit unions had still not been covered, but we were not to worry because the Lord Chancellor will cover the credit unions by order. Perhaps the Solicitor-General will explain why there was such a terrible rush to take this order that there was not enough time to draft the necessary additional provisions that will enable us to bring the credit unions, which are of relatively much greater importance in Northern Ireland than elsewhere, and are a much more important source of savings in the Province, into the order. We might just as well have taken our time, done the job properly, and put the credit unions in the order while we were about it.
We were then told that the Lord Chancellor will use his power to exclude minimal sums and that he was thinking about £50. Although I have considerable faith that the monetarist policies of the present Administration will greatly restrain the progress of that fell disease inflation, I would not make a purist objection to the adornment of this order with a provision whereby the figure of £50 might subsequently be modified by order. That would be a reasonable provision and concession.
If the learned Solicitor-General can stand at the Dispatch Box and say that the minimum should be £50 in the present circumstances, why is it not in the Order in Council, and why is it left to the Lord Chancellor to do it by order-making power? Is that all that the order-making powers would be used for? Is the unlimited power to exclude in article 4(b) to be used only to prescribe £50, or in due course, when inflation has risen to 10 per cent., to increase it to £55? This is bad legislation. This may be a quiet House but bad legislation is going through it.
Any hon. Member, inspecting the terms of the order while I am addressing the House, might allow his eye to fall on the provisions that allow for future orders made by the Lord Chancellor to be anulled by resolution by either House of Parliament, and might be saying to himself, "Is that not sufficient safeguard? Why should those pernickety Ulstermen complain of having orders made instead of provisions put into the Order in Council? They will still be able to argue and vote against the subordinate legislation under the Order in Council in time to come." I have to tell those hon. Members that I fear that they are mistaken.
Nothing would give me greater pleasure than for the Solicitor-General to say that when it says in article 4(4) that the
order shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament
it means just that. I hope that he will be able to do that, for it will be the dawning of a blessed day for my hon. Friends and myself, who have writhed hitherto under the injustice of the negative procedure, whereby subordinate legislation in respect of Northern Ireland has, since the Law Officers Act 1944, not been subject to any parliamentary process whatsoever on this side of the Irish sea or the other.
We are not merely leaving to be done by subordinate order that which could and should be done in the principal order itself, but we are leaving it to be done by subordinate orders, which unlike subordinate orders applying to the rest of the kingdom will not be subject to any parliamentary procedure.
This is a bad specimen of a bad method of legislation. Although my right hon. and hon. Friends and I consider

that the provisions it makes are necessary and desirable, we are glad to see covered the institutions which are used as banks. We are also glad to see that the law in our Province will be uniform with that of the rest of the United Kingdom. We should not be doing our duty if we allowed this opportunity to pass without marking our dissatisfaction, which I hope is shared by the whole House. It is essentially an affront to the parliamentary process that this type of legislation, which is now in its ninth year, is used to make or alter the law in Northern Ireland.

The Solicitor-General: I am grateful to those right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken. I shall deal as best I can with the points that the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) raised, but if there are any with which I do not deal I undertake to write to him about them.
The hon. Gentleman began by welcoming the measure, which makes it easier for a judgment creditor to get his money. I am grateful for what he said in that regard. It is important that we should take all practicable means to enable the orders of the court to take effect when they order that a debt shall be paid. I was grateful for his welcome for the fact that the order provides for an enlargement of the class of accounts in which money is held to the credit of a judgment debtor which shall be eligible for the attachment of debts procedure. I see no reason why a judgment debt in favour of the Executive should not benefit just as a judgment debt in favour of any other creditor would benefit.
The hon. Gentleman asked why there is a need for the extension. In England and \Vales, the equivalent provision before the 1981 legislation was substantially narrower in regard to the scale of accounts which were accessible under the attachment of debts procedure. That statute was the Administration of Justice Act 1956. The width of that scale was reduced by judgment of the courts. They limited still further the class of accounts to which the attachment of debts procedure applied. In 1981 we were faced in England and Wales with the need to broaden the scale of accounts. That is the case today. Therefore, the enlargement on this side of the water is a relatively recent event.
The Judgment Enforcement (Northern Ireland) Order 1981, which embodies the law in this regard, was a purely consolidating order. It was not an occasion when the legislature re-examined the issue asking, "How shall we bring matters up to date?" Had it been so, no doubt the opportunity to do the same thing on that side of the water would have been taken. Now, albeit two years later, we are putting matters virtually on all fours with England and Wales.
The hon. Member for Londonderry, East said that the law in Northern Ireland will be the same as that in England and Wales, and he asked about Scotland's position. I cannot answer the Scottish question, and I would be rash to venture into a discussion of Scotland's jurisdiction. I shall find out about that matter and let the hon. Gentleman know the answer.
Equally importantly, the hon. Member for Londonderry, East asked about the effect of the change of the law in England and Wales. I cannot give figures, but hon. Members can look at the extensive list of accounts and the institutions which, under the 1981 order, are


eligible for the operation of the attachment of debts procedure in England and Wales. The 1981 order uses the definition of a deposit-taking institution contained in the Banking Act 1979. The attachment of debts procedure will apply to 14 separate institutions or organisations holding accounts. There must be a substantial widening of the power of the courts. I cannot say what the effect has been in money terms, but it has been substantial. I expect that the same results will be enjoyed in Northern Ireland.
The hon. Member for Londonderry, East asked how the courts discover whether a debtor has money on deposit. There is no sure-fire way of applying an X-ray, as it were, to the affairs of a judgment debtor, but the courts have certain powers under, for example, the Bankers' Books Evidence Act 1879. In certain circumstances, debtors can be examined about their means. When that has occurred, an obvious question concerns what bank accounts they have. There are provisions whereby bankers must open the accounts. Substantial means for disclosure exist.
The hon. Member for Londonderry, East asked why we had not taken the opportunity to strengthen the powers of the courts when a judgment debtor has moved from one address to another. An order applies once it is made. Whether it can be enforced depends on whether the debtor can be located and served with notice of further proceedings. I understand the difficulty. We intended merely an updating exercise to bring the Northern Ireland law of enforcement, in the respects that I have described, into line with the law of England and Wales.
The hon. Member for Londonderry, East asked why we should take this opportunity to correct two minor errors in the Bankruptcy Amendment (Northern Ireland) Order 1980 to which article 5 refers. One order is better than two. Since it was found to be in order to put the smaller matter right in this order, it was probably wise and economical to use this measure rather than come before the House with further legislation. On the whole, that is a tendency in Government to be encouraged rather than discouraged.
I recognise the longstanding objection of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and the Official Unionist party to the present legislative base for the Province. The right hon. Gentleman again took the opportunity to express his views on that. We know what the circumstances are. Tonight under existing legislative arrangements we seek to secure the approval of the House for a valuable and useful measure. I believe that I have dealt with his question about whether these matters were overlooked in 1981.
The right hon. Member for Down, South referred to the power in article 3(4) for the Lord Chancellor to amend as he likes. The answer that I am about to give is one that I may need to correct in correspondence if it proves to be wrong but I do not think that that will be the case. The power which is taken in the article is one which is to be found in the 1981 Act, which is the equivalent legislation for England and Wales. I believe that there is the same power by subordinate legislation to make an amendment. If that is so, it is another example of the parity which we

are seeking to achieve. If it is not, it is not a point that I am entitled to take and I shall confess that to the right hon. Gentleman in correspondence if I have to do so.
I think it sensible to have a power whereby the Executive in the guise of the Lord Chancellor can say, "If we are dealing with credit unions, for example, it is important to take account of the fact that the members of such institutions may well have small accounts." That being so, it will be convenient to specify that there shall be a minimum sum below which the attachment of debts procedure shall not operate. It is in the interests of the credit unions that the reference to £50 should be included.
With respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I would not think it desirable to specify such a sum on the face of the order. It may prove to be too low or too high in the light of experience. I suggest that it is sensible to have a provision of the sort which the right hon. Gentleman criticises for fixing an alternative level if so advised.
The right hon. Member for Down, South asked whether subordinate legislation in this regard can be debated. He has vastly more experience than I of the procedures of the House and he will not expect me to seek to improve upon his own knowledge of these important matters.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The hon. and learned Gentleman may have misunderstood me. Under the 1974 interim legislation, it is not clear on the face of it whether the negative procedure applies during the interim period. It was not clear to me whether the provisions that we are discussing were caught by that interim arrangement and it was to that that I was addressing myself. As long as that is the case, there is a valid reason why the apparent identity of law between England and Wales and Northern Ireland is not so close an identity as might to the naked eye appear.

The Solicitor-General: If that is the case, I acknowledge the validity of the right hon. Gentleman's point. He said that it is not clear to him and I confess that at present it is not clear to me. I would be rash to essay a constitutional proposition on which I was not entirely clear. However, I shall improve my knowledge of these matters and write to him.
I hope that I have dealt with the helpful and valuable matters that have been raised during the debate. There is no dispute that the substantive provisions are valuable and timely, and therefore I hope that the House will see fit to approve the order.

Mr. Michael Meacher: I say on behalf of the Opposition that, having listened carefully to the arguments, we do not have any objection to this measure and that we shall not be opposing it.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Judgments Enforcement (Attachment of Debts) (Northern Ireland) Order 1983 which was laid before this House on 11th November, be approved.

SCOTTISH AFFAIRS

Ordered,
That, in the course of its consideration of the matter of the National Health Service in Scotland, the Scottish Grand Committee may meet in Edinburgh on Monday 12th December at half-past Ten o'clock.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

Orders of the Day — St. Wulstan's Hospital, Malvern

Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

Mr. Michael Spicer: This is the third time in the past nine years that I have had the chance to raise on the Adjournment the issue of the future of St. Wulstan's hospital, Malvern.
It is a matter of fact that since its opening in 1961 St. Wulstan's has led the world in developing institutionalised techniques for the rehabilitation of mentally-ill patients. This very day Dr. Morgan, the hospital's director, is flying to Chile to address an international conference of psychiatrists in Santiago on the subject of rehabilitation.
The threatened closure of the hospital, arising out of the decision of the Worcester district health authority, raises a number of problems, and I am extremely grateful to have the opportunity to put them before the Minister tonight. The issue illustrates once again the cumbersome, sometimes tedious, undoubtedly expensive and certainly unsatisfactory way in which some decisions seem to be reached within the Health Service.
Until some time earlier this year—it is part of my argument that we do not know exactly when—St. Wulstan's was the sole responsibility of the regional health authority. This was sensible, as referrals to St. Wulstan's were made from health districts throughout the West Midlands regional health authority and, for that matter, from authorities all over the country. Previous decisions to keep St. Wulstan's open were made largely on the basis that comparable facilities did not exist in the other health authorities in the region. I shall return to this critical point in a moment.
In recent years the region has maintained a committee structure to oversee St. Wulstan's and has launched at least one inquiry into the management of the hospital. Some time earlier this year—we do not know when—an unpublicised decision was made to pass responsibility for the hospital to the Worcester and district health authority, which now maintains three separate institutions for the mentally ill. In this way—I stress behind closed doors—intolerable budgetary pressures were placed on a single district authority despite the fact that 94 per cent. of the patients at St. Wulstan's are drawn from the whole region and, as I said earlier, from the whole country.
By implication, and without public debate, there were apparently the makings of a major change in policy away from one by which St. Wulstan's was to be kept open so long as there were no comparable facilities in the region. Such procedures do not increase public confidence that decisions in the Health Service are made on a rational basis. Certainly, in this case, they are not being made on an open basis.
The second issue raised by the threatened closure of St. Wulstan's, which should certainly be capable of some form of rational assessment, concerns the whole future of institutionalised care of the mentally ill. Of course it must be right to ensure that the maximum number of mentally-ill patients lead lives as near normal as possible within the community. Indeed, by sheer coincidence the Worcester project, one of the most advanced experiments in community care for the mentally ill, operates geographically alongside St. Wulstan's. The fact is that, however successfully community care progresses, there will always

remain a danger that for certain patients this community care will be a euphemism for throwing them on to the street, especially when resources are scarce.
The evidence is strong today—stronger than 10 years ago—that, even in the foreseeable future, there will be a role for some form of institutionalised care. The National Schizophrenia Fellowship wrote on 20 August:
This Fellowship's experience is that community care—even in those few areas where it is adequately provided—is only suitable for the less severely ill patients.
According to the fellowship, severely-ill patients still need institutionalised care. The main questions, therefore, are what sort of care should be provided, and in what sort of institutions.
Since its foundation, St. Wulstan's has successfully striven to break away not only from the practice but from the environment of the 19th century asylum. What has been created has little appeal for those whose ideal is a palace of hygienic plastic. That is part of the promotional problem from which St. Wulstan's has suffered. It is no more than a collection of adequately refurbished separate units, whose prime characteristic in the past 20 years has been the provision of work experience and, above all, a happy home for well over 1,000 patients from all over the country.
In the 10 years during which I have represented Worcestershire, South my tiling cabinets have been full of evidence from patients, their families, referring doctors and psychiatric experts at home and abroad that what is special about the St. Wulstan's experiment is the sense of community. I have here a letter dated 4 August 1983 from Mrs. Alison Ashfield to the district administrator. It is about the experiences of her twin sister who had been a patient in St. Wulstan's. The letter ends:
May this letter be one of thousands that ask for St. Wulstan's to be kept open for the people who would otherwise take a very much longer time to recover or who may never leave the hospital to which they are sent.
One of the arguments for closing St. Wulstan's has always been the cost of keeping it up to date. The current jargon is "upgrading". One of the figures currently being bandied around is £4·5 million. When I first came into contact with this problem in the mid-1970s the figures quoted for the installation of new heating arrangements were between £500,000 and £1 million, but in fact a fine new boiler and associated heating installations cost only £187,000. People at the hospital now believe that £150,000, rather than the estimated £4·5 million, would be perfectly adequate to improve insulation and carry out regular maintenance in the roofs. There is therefore a large area of dispute. It may cost £4·5 million to create a great plastic palace, but if one is merely trying to run a hospital as it has been run in the past, making sure that it has appropriate heat insulation and is properly maintained, those who are connected with the hospital believe that £150,000 will be sufficient.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will address himself to the question of comparable facilities. When the hospital was last threatened with closure, the Government of the day accepted that it should not be closed until there were comparable facilities for the rehabilitation and treatment of the chronically mentally ill throughout the region. That has always been the Government's policy.
Having set up their own inquiry in the mid-1970s, the Government of the day found that, contrary to what they were told, the facilities in other hospitals throughout the


region were, by and large, no match for those provided at St. Wulstan's. At that time it was decided to keep the hospital open.
My only request to the Minister tonight is that before he decides whether or not to support the district health authority's recommendation to close St. Wulstan's, he should send his own inspectors—I stress that—to establish for himself, independently and directly, whether the promised comparable facilities now exist. There is—this is central to my reason for bringing the matter before the House—strong evidence in at least four districts that the comparable facilities do not exist.
In support of that view I quote from two letters. The first is from Dr. O'Shea, the chairman of the medical staff committee at the John Conolly hospital in Birmingham. He wrote on 3 August:
The regional study group on rehabilitation, having paid us several visits, has offered us no additional resources to develop facilities for rehabilitation, only advice about setting up committees and we are only too aware that the minor improvements to other hospitals listed in the consultative document"——
that is the consultative document of the regional district——
offer no prospect of the development of services comparable to those offered by St. Wulstan's. If comparable services were to be developed in each hospital this would be much more expensive than maintaining St. Wulstan's.
The chairman of the medical staff committee at the John Conolly hospital in Birmingham is quite clear in his mind that there are no comparable facilities in his hospital.
The second extract is from Dr. Morgan, the director of St. Wulstan's, who on 1 August wrote:
Four senior staff from Shelton hospital, Shrewsbury visited us last week and admitted in the course of conversation that they really have no proper rehabilitation service in their hospital. A few months ago St. Mary's hospital, Hereford told us the same. In March, Newtown hospital, Worcester told DHSS representatives that they have no proper facilities to offer to their growing number of long-term patients".
Those are the allegations. I merely ask the Minister to agree to investigate for himself whether they are true. Whatever his final decision on St. Wulstan's, he owes it to the patients, the staff, the families and the practice of psychiatry to reach a conclusion on the basis of the most objective evidence available to him.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Services (Mr. Tony Newton): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer) on introducing this debate on the future of St. Wulstan's hospital. It was clear from what he said that the work carried on at St. Wulstan's over the years had been very valuable in developing industrial rehabilitation for the mentally ill. I associate myself and the Department with the congratulations and support he gave to the importance of that work as it had been built up in past years.
As it happens, as the Minister responsible for the disabled I have a strong interest in the subject. Only last year I had the good fortune to address the annual general meeting of the British Institute of Industrial Therapy. Although I do not recall having the opportunity while I was there to meet anyone from St. Wulstan's, I formed a clear impression of the importance of the industrial rehabilitation work going on in many places throughout the country,

often being developed in new ways, particularly in connection with the general theme of care in the community.
I assure my hon. Friend that it is very much the Government's wish to do all we can to support and encourage the development of such work in appropriate ways to suit modern circumstances, whether it be in his area or any other part of the country, and to develop the priority that is given to improved services for the mentally ill.
I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the care and attention given by the staff of the hospital to the patients living there. My hon. Friend clearly demonstrated the great care with which he has researched the facts and the genuine concern he feels about the position of this hospital. If there is any doubt about that concern, one has only to look at his record of endeavour over the years on its behalf. This goes back to an Adjournment debate that he introduced on 23 March 1977. My hon. Friend's constituents and those concerned with the hospital are very lucky to have a Member of Parliament who has made sure that the case is fully and properly considered before important decisions are taken.
It follows inescapably from what I have said that St. Wulstan's has been the subject of a good deal of discussion and correspondence. However, it is clear there is still a degree of misunderstanding of the present position. I am particularly glad that my hon. Friend has raised the question of the future of the hospital as it gives me an opportunity to go as far as I can, although I fear that it will not be as far as my hon. Friend would like, to clarify the position.
As my hon. Friend said, the current situation is that consideration is being given to the future of the hospital under the standard procedure for the closure or change of use of health buildings which has been in force since 1975. Under this procedure the district health authority concerned has recently undertaken a comprehensive programme of consultation and, in view of the fact that the local community health council has disagreed with its proposal to close the hospital, has referred the matter with recommendations to the West Midlands regional health authority.
Regional health authorities are required to seek the approval of the Secretary of State before proceeding with the closure or change of use of health buildings. The Secretary of State has just received from the regional health authority the papers relating to the future of St. Wulstan's and will shortly be considering these, including all the comments received as the result of the consultation exercise.
My hon. Friend will, I am sure, appreciate that in these circumstances it would not be appropriate for me to express a view on the merits of retaining or closing St. Wulstan's. However, I should like to take the opportunity presented by this debate to outline some of the more important recent developments that have led to the present position and to the arrival of these papers on my right hon. Friend's desk.
In May last year, the West Midlands regional health authority accepted a report from a working party of members of the authority who had reviewed the role of St. Wulstan's hospital. In its report, the working party recognised that patterns of rehabilitative care in psychiatric hospitals had changed considerably in recent years and that, with a few specific exceptions which were


being remedied, the general standard of rehabilitation facilities and services throughout the region was now comparable to or better than that provided at St. Wulstan's hospital. I emphasise that that is not a judgment that I am making but one which was the conclusion of that working party report.
The working party also noted a number of weaknesses in the role now played by St. Wulstan's. It noted, for example, that St. Wulstan's was now in effect a long-stay chronic psychiatric hospital and was no longer fulfilling its original brief to provide a regional service and to return patients to their own communities. It also noted that the admission of patients to St. Wulstan's from a regional catchment area and their eventual discharge mainly into the Malvern and adjoining communities was imposing an increasing and unwarranted burden on local social services and housing departments. Again, I report the working party's view rather than endorsing it at this stage.
The working party pointed out that the numbers of new admissions had fallen considerably since 1975. During the six years 1976–81. admissions had averaged fewer than two patients per month. Only 108 patients had been admitted from other hospitals in the region during that period. Local patients were now treated within the Worcester development project—a programme set up by the Department of Health and Social Security to demonstrate how problems of transition from the old to a modern psychiatric service could be solved in a cooperative exercise involving local and hospital authorities. My hon. Friend will know that this is a type of development to which all Ministers attach considerable importance.
The working party drew attention to the fact that the regional strategy document published by the regional health authority included among its objectives:
To establish in each District a social and industrial rehabilitation programme provided by consultants with a special responsibility working with community nurses and paramedical workers, eg therapeutic staff, social workers and phychologists. Industrial training facilities are essential and should provide courses covering a variety of skills.
The working party pointed out that, since rehabilitation services should, by definition, be district-based, it was clearly unacceptable, in its view, that patients should continue to be sent to a hospital which might be up to 60 miles from the patient's home district.
As my hon. Friend is aware, the Worcester and district health authority is responsible for the management of St. Wulstan's. This summer, against the background of the regional working party's report, and as part of its work of ensuring that it was making the best use of its resources, the district authority began a wide-ranging programme of consultation on the future of the hospital. It consulted both on the question of whether the regional rehabilitation service for the mentally ill was still necessary, and on the pattern of services in Worcester which would best meet the needs of existing mentally ill patients.
The authority considered the results of its consultation on 28 October and, in the light of the comments received, decided that the regional rehabilitation service should end. It also agreed that St. Wulstan's should be closed and that an independent multi-disciplinary assessment panel should assess each existing patient with a view to recommending the most appropriate form of future care.
As I said earlier, the Worcester and district community health council opposed the closure of St. Wulstan's, and the local health authority has referred the matter to the regional health authority.
The RHA's sources of advice on St. Wulstan's have been the working party of members which was set up by the RHA in May 1977 and, via the working party, a regional advisory team in psychiatric rehabilitation and a task force appointed by the RHA in June 1981 to obtain detailed basic factual information about the patients resident in and dependent on St. Wulstan's hospital
In addition, the region's planning advisory group held meetings earlier this year with district management teams. The meetings provided an opportunity to check the situation with those DMTs likely to be affected by any change relating to St. Wulstan's.
I understand that in all cases it was confirmed that no difficulties could be foreseen in maintaining services in the event of St. Wulstan's closing. Against that background, I understand that the regional health authority supported the closure proposal at the meeting of the full authority held on 16 November 1983.
I am sorry that it is not possible at this juncture to be more specific about the approach that will be taken by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in judging the case before him. Clearly, however, he will wish to examine all the evidence as objectively as possible before reaching a decision. I can certainly confirm to my hon. Friend that the nature of rehabilitation facilities generally in the region will be a central element in my right hon. Fiend's consideration of the closure proposal. However, I cannot go so far as to say that proof that facilities comparable to those at St. Wulstan's exist in all 22 districts in the west midlands region is an absolute condition for closure.

Mr. Michael Spicer: My hon. Friend is giving a fair and reasoned answer to what I have asked. Can he say whether the Secretary of State will examine this matter himself or send one of his inspectors, and not rely just on the advice from the region, because it is a fairly well-established thought, if not fact, that the region has had, from the word go, a point of view about the proposed closure? The working party to which my hon. Friend referred is not truly objective. I have given evidence about the comparable facilities. Will the Government examine the matter, as have other Governments, with their inspectors?

Mr. Newton: I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern. I hope that he will in turn recognise that the reports coming to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State when considering these matters go beyond the information provided by the working party of the regional health authority. I have touched on the views that I understand have been expressed by district management teams throughout the region.
We shall be looking at the case presented by the regional health authority, together with all the evidence that it has presented, from whatever source, along with all the objections made, including the matters to which my hon. Friend has referred and reaching a judgment on the overall picture. If my right hon. Friend thinks that additional information is needed to enable him to do that, he will, of course, seek it. I assure my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health, when considering


these matters, go to great trouble to satisfy themselves that they have a full and proper basis for taking the decision that they are asked to take. I shall communicate to my right hon. Friend and my hon. and learned Friend the particular anxiety that my hon. Friend has expressed and the specific matter to which he referred.
It has been helpful and instructive to listen to what my hon. Friend has said and in some respects to the additional

information that he has provided of the background against which my right hon. Friend has to make a decision. I give my hon. Friend an absolute guarantee that all relevant factors, including, not least, what he has said on behalf of his constituents and the hospital, will be reported to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and taken into account before he reaches his decision.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at six minutes to Ten o'clock.